RE: Consistency Issues in multiple modelReferences

Hi,
Could modelReferences be understood as perspectives of people who will
create these annotations (assuming that more then one person can create
annotations for one WSDL element)? Or should the person who annotates WSDL
element by multiple modelReferences keep in mind that these should be
consistent? 

In the first case, it should be clear which modelReferences will be used for
the processing. For the second case, may be there could be a consistency
check provided by an annotator tool already...

Tomas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-semann-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-semann-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: 29 May 2006 17:55
> To: verma@cs.uga.edu
> Cc: public-ws-semann@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Consistency Issues in multiple modelReferences
> 
> 
> Hi Kunal, John,
> 
> since it would be hard for us to define inconsistencies completely
> (without formalizing what we point to using some kind of logics), I'd
> suggest that we can note that in case an inconsistency is discovered by
> the processing agent, the WSDL document with semantic annotations should
> be treated as an invalid SAWSDL document, i.e. no action should be based
> on information in this document.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 11:56 -0400, Kunal Verma wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If we support multiple modelReference for a WSDL element, do we plan
> > to add rules about consistency. Specifically, should someone be
> > allowed to annotate an element with two concepts (conceivably from
> > different models/languages but translatable to a common
> > model/language) that may contradict each other?
> >
> > These may become more of an issue in the following contexts:
> >
> > a) multiple operation based discovery.
> >
> > b) composition.
> >
> > c) use of protocols that use state information.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kunal Verma and John A. Miller
> >
> >
>

Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 17:29:23 UTC