Donal, On 14 Apr 2005, at 9:10, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
There is a JSDL Specification which defines a family of documents such as jsdl:JobDefinition. If you want to talk about a JSDL document, you need to define a "JSDL" element! Every XML element is a document, once you embrace the universe as an infoset. :-) Again, the specification (to my understanding) does NOT define an ontology. It clearly states the parent child relationships between the elements, for example a "[jsdl:Application element] MUST be a sub-element of the JobDescription element." (draft-ggf-jsdl-spec-0.9.5-01.doc, ch. 5.4.1.1).
It is this message/discussion that I was referring to during the telecon.
Examining the current spec indicates that we do not define an ontology, and this is because we specify what elements must contain other elements. By dropping the reference from element definitions to their parents (as used in a job-defining document) we can define an ontology *as well*. Sounds like a win all round to me.
In this respect I fully agree. I am not objecting the idea of defining an ontology at all. It is simply the fact that changing the spec to define an ontology will cause quite some text changes and general reorganisation of the specifcation document itself. I'd rather postpone this to a later JSDL version. Cheers, Michel