SAWSDL Candidate Recommendation Implementation Report

See also the Test Suite.

The following is a list of SAWSDL features that we test for:

1. modelReference on WSDL Interface components (sec 3.1)
2. modelReferences from extended interface apply on extending interface (sec 3.1)
3. modelReference on WSDL Interface Operation components (sec 3.2)
4. modelReference on WSDL Interface Fault components (sec 3.3)
5. modelReference on XML Schema Simple Type definitions, incl. propagation to element and attribute declarations (sec 4.1.1)
6. modelReference on XML Schema Complex Type definitions (top-level), incl. propagation to element declarations (sec 4.1.2)
7. modelReference on XML Schema Element declarations (sec 4.1.3)
8. modelReference on XML Schema Attribute declarations (sec 4.1.4)
9. liftingSchemaMapping on XML Schema Element declarations (sec 4.2)
10. liftingSchemaMapping on XML Schema Type definitions (sec 4.2)
11. loweringSchemaMapping on XML Schema Element declarations (sec 4.2)
12. loweringSchemaMapping on XML Schema Type definitions (sec 4.2)
13. liftingSchemaMapping and loweringSchemaMapping propagation from type definition to element declaration using that type, plus overriding (sec 4.2)
14. attrExtensions element with arbitrary annotations (sec 5.1)
15. annotations on WSDL 1.1 elements (grouped together) (sec 5.2)
16. RDF mapping - turning annotations into RDF statements (sec 6)

The criteria for moving on to Proposed Recommendation are:

1. At least two parsers and at least one generator tool that implements SAWSDL over WSDL 2.0.
2. At least one parser that implements SAWSDL over WSDL 1.1.
3. At least one parser that implements the attrExtensions element.
4. At least one implementation of the RDF mapping.
5. For every SAWSDL feature, at least one specification that uses it for Semantic Web Services automation.

In the following table, we show what implementations provide or use what features.

Key: Green means this column in this category is done, Yellow means this impl has it right, but more impls are needed, and Red means the impl does not have this feature and the we need it for moving out of CR. No color means this feature is not necessary or applicable in this category or that the report is not yet complete in this part. Footnotes are used to explain why a feature is not applicable.

Footnotes:

1. CR criteria requires support for SAWSDL, not additional extensions. We know of no deployment of sawsdl:attrExtensions with anything other than SAWSDL, even though such use is supported and described.
2. Only WSDL 2.0 here.
3. RDF Mapping not applicable here, it's only in the last category.
4. A tool for creating SAWSDL annotations need not do propagation, in fact, it should allow the designer to put annotations only on types without them showing up on the elements or attributes in the results.
5. Specifications above SAWSDL can assume propagation happens, they need not talk about it. Tools in this category are in a similar position, even though some of them may not yet implement propagation.
6. For specifications and tools above SAWSDL the use of attrExtensions should be transparent.
7. For our CR criteria, we do not consider which version of WSDL is used in the specification or tool, there are no significant differences for us.
8. WSDL RDF mapping does not support XML Schema RDF mapping (which does not exist), therefore these parts of SAWSDL are ignored at the moment.
9. The RDF mapping can assume propagation happens, it need not talk about it.
10. The RDF mapping is only defined for WSDL 2.0 and only for SAWSDL, no additional extensions.
11. WSDL 1.1 does not have a standalone fault construct.

Copyright © 2006 W3C^® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.