[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (SRAMP-31) Should s-ramp artifactshave their own namespace and/or OWL classification
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/SRAMP-31?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=26595#action_26595 ]
Vincent Brunssen commented on SRAMP-31:
---------------------------------------
In Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the S-RAMP Foundation Document Working Draft all of the artifact models that are used in S-RAMP are defined. The artifact models are as follows:
- XSD
- Policy
- SOAPWSDL
- WSDL
- SOA
- ServiceImplementation
Each of the above defined Artifact Models also have corresponding artifact types. For example, a WSDL Artifact will have a WSDLService, Port, Part, Message, etc.
It is proposed that we define an OWL Classification for each one of the artifact models and their corresponding types. This would be done by taking the S-RAMP name space and adding on to the end of it the /AtrifactModel#ArtifactType. An example of this would be http://www.s-ramp.org/wsdl#Port.
By adding an OWL Classification it can be clarified how Artifact Models and Artifact Types are represented in S-RAMP and avoid possible name clashes with user defined Artifact Models and Artifact Types.
One question would be the namespace for this OWL Classification. We can use www.s-ramp.org as a placeholder, but there are some guidelines in OASIS for establishing namespaces and that will need to be researched. I am currently working on resolving that issue.
It is also proposed that this work be included in the text in section 2.1 when the Artifact Type Models are introduced. Text would need to be written in this area to introduce how an OWL Classification would be used to classify the Artifact Types.
An appendix would also need to be written that would contain the actual OWL Ontology as defined in RDF. There would also need to be a corresponding file created that would be able to be consumed by implementers of the S-RAMP specification.
If this proposal is accepted, the revisions to the document and an initial RDF file could be produced and ready for review by the August 10 S-RAMP TC conference call.
> Should s-ramp artifacts have their own namespace and/or OWL classification
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SRAMP-31
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/SRAMP-31
> Project: OASIS SOA Repository Artifact Model and Protocol (S-RAMP) TC
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Foundation
> Affects Versions: 1.0
> Environment: S-RAMP Foundation Document
> Reporter: Vincent Brunssen
> Assignee: Vincent Brunssen
> Fix For: 1.0
>
>
> In the S-RAMP Foundation document section 2.3 and 2.4 define the S-RAMP models. It has been asserted that the artifacts defined in these sections could have classifications that are associated with each artifact. An example of this might be an Organization could have an OWL classification of http://www.s-ramp.org/ServiceImplementationModel#Organization.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]