Response to your WSDL RDF Mapping comments

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Response to your WSDL RDF Mapping comments

Jacek Kopecky

Dear Karl,

last August, we have received your QA review of the WSDL RDF mapping
document [1]. Your comments were logged as issues in [2], in particular
issues 293 to 298. This email contains my responses (as the main editor
of the document); I tried to implement the intent of your suggestions as
much as I could.

293: section 2.1.1 is now clarified to show that the "assumption" is not
normative and does not affect interop in scope of the document.
Discussion of handling of inconsistency issues when merging SemWeb data
is out of scope here.

294: the introduction (Sec 1) now mentions several various options wrt.
implementing the RDF mapping

295, 296: the document now contains a conformance section.

297: the mapping of unknown extensions in the WSDL RDF mapping spec was
removed because either SemWeb tools don't have a good support for
working with XML (which would be required to get useful information from
the XML Literal which used to represent unknown extensions) or, if they
support XML, there is no reason they shouldn't use the WSDL directly.
Known extensions are mapped to RDF according to whatever the extension

298: editorial, most comments implemented, some still waiting as "todo"s
in the document.

Thanks a lot for the comments, they were very useful,
Jacek Kopecky