See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: BrahmanandaS
<scribe> scribenick:bns
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060523
RESOLUTION: Minutes approved
<scribe> ACTION: 2006-05-09: EricP to make the HTML to override the schema at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/sawsdl [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060530#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: 2006-05-16: Holger to try and describe the use cases for category element [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060530#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: 2006-05-23: Terry to review last call of WSDL RDF mapping http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-rdf/ by beginning of July [ONGOING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060530#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: 2006-05-23: EricP to review last call of WSDL RDF mapping http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-rdf/ by beginning of July [ONGOING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060530#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: 2006-05-23: Laurent to propose specific textual changes for including multiple model references [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060530#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: 2006-05-23: Laurent to draft text to address annotations on complex types and "basic types" [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060530#action06]
JacekK: please fill in the F2F meeting form, even if you do not intend to attend
<ericP> +1 to seeking supporting use cases
JacekK: specification and use cases of new feature would clarify
we need to provide a mechanism for searching on the WSDL file, thus this complexity
it is an open question, whether or not it is required to add complexity
<ericP> i see it as impossible to prevent multiple WSDL files, though the question of whether that is an encouraged practice is a relevent question.
rama: since we are adding annotation at the level of WS, people who are creating WS are the one who actually control ontology
... having context info directly is much more controllable
ericP: prefer decentralized technology, rather than centralized one
JacekK: annotations will be grouped within a context and must be consistent
... annotations in different contexts need not be consistent
... do we have a concrete example?
<Amit> what are the different context types?
<ericP> out specification has the responsibility of allowing people to label the semantics of the application logics, so they are in our "requirements"
holger: a) do not use versioning to justify the complexity since neither wsdl nor most known semantic models support it
... b) to justify we can argue with e.g. with different languages c) to reduce complexity we can introduce a default context
do not use versioning to justify the complexity since neither wsdl nor most known semantic models support it
to justify we can argue with e.g. with different languages
reduce complexity we can introduce a defult context
<holger> +1
JohnMiller: we can work on versioning in future, but may be not now
JacekK: do we have any, apart from versioning, use case that support context?
<Amit> if we pursue context further, me might end up defining an ontology for context specification (just as I would have an ontology for WS Policy or WS Agreement)
laurent: we may have a better example by looking at different languages
<ericP> my guess is we can add it when we need it
Amit: if we want to pursue it, we might end up defining new terminologies, another sub committee for defining these terminologies, ontologies
Jacek summarizes his thinking about schemaMapping
confirmations that this is what is meant
Joel: we had a use case of one-to-many mapping between element and ontological term, but this can be solved in the ontology
Rama: however, this still might be a pertinent use case
<JacekK> ACTION: Rama to describe one-to-many mapping between elements and ontology terms using schemaMapping on a concrete SA-WSDL file [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060530#action07]