W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2004

RE: Issue i017 - Purpose of the Action property -- my action item

From: <michael.eder@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:58:20 -0500
Message-ID: <E320A8529CF07E4C967ECC2F380B0CF90171797F@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Hi Anish, et. al.

My question is do we want to not just make an editorial changes in the core spec.

The current language is:

"An identifier that uniquely (and opaquely) identifies the semantics implied by this message."  Maybe it should be "An identifier used to identify the semantics implied by this message"  Then add some language to say the identifier SHOULD uniquely (and opaquely) identify the semantics implied by this message.

- Michael 



-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Anish
Karmarkar
Sent: December 20, 2004 12:59 AM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Issue i017 - Purpose of the Action property -- my action item



During the 2004-12-13 I took an AI to send an email out to the ML regd 
issue i017.
Going through the archives of the mailing list I see that I had already 
sent an email regarding this (on nov 15th). It is located at [1].

To recap that email:

1) The [action] property is supposed to uniquely identify the semantics 
implied by the message. Since the value of this property is fixed by the 
WSDL description (either through the defaulting mechanism or through the 
use of wsa:Action attribute), this value is really per message type 
within an MEP/operation/transmission primitive. Note that there are 
semantics associated with the MEP/operation grouping within an 
interface/portType as well as semantics associated with the individual 
input/output/fault message defined in WSDL. Why is it necessary to 
provide a mechanism, specifically the wsa:Action attribute, which 
overrides the default (where the default algorithm does produce a unique 
value)? What is the usecase for this? At the very least identical 
(wsa:Action) attribute values should be disallowed, otherwise the 
[action] property will not uniquely identify the semantics implied by 
the message (type).

2) There is a operation name mapping requirement in WSDL 2.0 [2]. Given 
that we have resolved issue i031 to make [action] property required, I 
see the [action] property can be used to satisfy the operation name 
mapping requirement. WS-Addressing WSDL 2.0 binding should define how 
this is done.

HTH.

-Anish
--

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0380.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#Interface_OperationName
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 13:59:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT