See also: IRC log
<JacekK> scribe: Rama Akkiraju
<JacekK> scribenick: rakkiraj
Jacek: John Miller from UGA may be joining us as an invited expert
... Invited experts role only for 6 months
... will think about John being an editor (for which he volunteers)
<JacekK> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060411
Jacek: Last week's minutes: Approved
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
Jacek: One action item from last week. Branhmananda has cvs account. The doc. hasn't yet started
<caribou> ACTION: BNS, JacekK and staff contacts to start the Examples document [ONGOING]
Jacek: can start the doc as soon as we see some examples on the public/private forum
Jacek: Face-2-Face: DERI Galway will host 1st f2f.
... 13th-14th of June.
Mattias: Can't make tuesday and wed
... No, sorry, the dates are ok.
Jacek: Meeting logistics page will be setup ASAP.
... Date and place for first f2f is fixed as DERI galway.
RESOLUTION: first face-to-face in Galway, Ireland, June 13 and 14
Jacek: two issues are submitted. Will talk about it. If you have any comments submit them to the public mailing list.
... Title to be changed to 'Semantic Annotations for WSDL'
How about WSDL 1.1 Vs WSDL 2.0. We should combine it.
Joel: The current spec has a section on WSDL 1.1.
Jacek: We can keep it that way until it grows or if issues arise
Eric: supports Jacek's suggestion
RESOLUTION: Title changed to 'Semantic Annotations for WSDL'
rakkiraju: can post some examples soon after checking confidentiality further
Jacek: Moving onto issues
<JacekK> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/#open
Jacek: type of modelReference attribute
Joel: intention was URI, inconsistencies are errors
<ericP> +1 for URI from the RDF geeks
rakkiraj: A list of URIs would be good to have
eric: Would like to see usecases and scenarios
Jacek: May be we want to think about it a bit more
Joel: Multiple URIs seems good. But we need to discuss about how tools deal with these multiple URIs. Want to avoid complex syntax.
... How do we know what kind of a model it is?
... We need to understand what is required by tools to understand the type of the model
Jacek: Why not queue name? - Amit's question.
... Semantic languages all use URI's to point to things. Qnames are typed.
Amit: What we are adding to is WSDL. Why not keep it consistent with WSDL and think about QName?
Eric: Identify the semantics of agien object: Give a URI.
... semantics have diff. representations in diff. languages.
... IRIs allows us infinite extensibility with no pain.
... Extensibility gets confusing with QName
Amit: Looking for simple things from a developer's point of view.
Eric: Have to look at a usecase.
... What makes it easy to consume?
Amit: User will be driven by the ontology driven discovery process. Ex: Match a PIP in Rosettanet
Jacek: OWL, WSMO uses URIS
... UML uses strings. Does any of these models uses QNames?
... If none of them use QNamees, then we should just go with URIs.
Eric: Browsers use URIs too
Amit: can you always generate URI from a QName?
... If you do have QNames could you get URIs from it?
... Can they coexist?
Jacek: There was a proposal to transform QNames to URIs
... No proposal known to transform URIs to QNames
Amit: So, then if we adopt URIs we can't support QNames
Jacek: Languages that use QNames do also define URIs for identifying components.
Amit: Other side: Want to coexist with WSDL-RDF mapping.
... So there is an argument in favor of URI.
Jacek: There is preference for URIs.
Eric: Evaluate when it is an issue.
... When the person consuming the WSDL wants to do something with the QName.
Jacek: QName is more readable
Amit: What about a way to support both
Eric: if you hae semantics for interpreting QNames in RDF XML you concatenate the ns. You end up with something readable but still uses URIS
Jacek: Is there a mechanism to support both?
... We can't have both in unencoded form.
... Every QName is a URI where the prefix is interpreted as a URI scheme.
Eric: Syntactically differentiate them if you support both
... if you offer app level semantics to QName smeantics, you end with data types with QName but data model interpretation is that it is a URI
Jacek: Amit means something different. Clarification.
... Would like someone to come up wth a proposal. A scenario of why we need QNames
John: We had both URIs and QNames.
... in previous examples.
Jacek: Parser won't have problems parsing QNames ... but you loose the prefix-to-ns mapping.
Amit: Have a post on the mailing list and come back to it next week.
Eric: Convenience: Syntax or readability?
Amit: Mostly readability
Jacek: when using base and relative URIs, they are short and very readable
<scribe> ACTION: John Miller (responsible: Amit) to start off the discussion about issue #1 by looking at the implementation and seeing if base URIs and relative URIs also help the way QNames do.
Jacek: Closes Issue 1 for this week
... Issue #2: Embedded semantic descriptions
... There have been comments on SAWSDL/WSDL-S supporting embedded semantic descriptions.
... Either in a separate container or even in-place.
<ericP> +1
rakkiraj: worth discussing
John: It might make sense to have tags. Things could be useful.
Caribou: some people in the IG talked about that.
... So we should ask them to contribute the usecases
<scribe> ACTION: Carine to ask the SWS-IG about use cases for embedding semantic annotations
Jacek: It is worth discussing. Not much time left to discuss this.
Eric: Can show pointer to embedded descriptions
<ericP> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/SPDL/#amazonSearch
Jacek: Adjourn now. Think about these things and discuss them on mailing lists
... External annotations without modifying the WSDL is out of scope.
Amit: Can we pursue that subsequently.
Jacek: Changing of WSDL is a valid concern. But this is out of scope for this. Raise on the public forum.
Amit: may be useful for complex mappings and functions
<JacekK> meeting adjourned