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

RE: Issue 019: WSDL Version Neutrality

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:02:14 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0E07DBFE@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Haas
>Sent: Monday, Nov 08, 2004 16:49 PM
>To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>Subject: Issue 019: WSDL Version Neutrality
>This is to start discussion of issues 019:
>    The Member submission uses many WSDL 1.1-specific terms and
>    concepts; we need to make the language equally applicable to WDSL
>    2.0. E.g., mapping operation names to URIs.
>    http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i019
>I believe that it is mainly editorial except for the implicit value of
>the action property.

<stuff deleted/>

>- the action MIH has some WSDL 1.1 language associated to it. I would
>  propose:
>    It is RECOMMENDED that value of the [action] property is a URI
>    identifying an input, output, or fault message within a WSDL
>    description.
>- the main issue with the action MIH comes from:
>    An action may be explicitly or implicitly associated with the
>    corresponding WSDL definition. Section 3.3 below describes the
>    mechanisms of association.
>  However, section 3.3 describes a WSDL 1.1-specific mechanism. If the
>  service has a WSDL 2.0 description, another mechanism needs to be
>  used, which is actually defined by the WSDL 2.0 specification[4].
>  I would therefore propose that section 3.3 be introduced as a
>  mapping of a WSDL 1.1 description to an action URI, that we note
>  that for WSDL 2.0, the message reference component URI should be
>  used.

After many hours of discussions in WSDL 2.0 wg with respect to how to carry operation names on the wire, the  content of [action] with the fragment identifier as proposed looks a lot like the operation name feature for WSDL 2.0 [1], which is described in Section Interestingly, there has been resistence to make it a required feature [2]. 

Action delivers exactly the requirement that the operation name feature was trying to deliver with your proposal, namely making the operation name on the wire to be present. If Action is required to be present, as being debated now, consequently the operation name will always present as suggested by the fragment identifier value ONLY IF the value of [action] MUST be the fragment identifier.  

Therefore, I am trying to get a clarification to whether you are suggesting that the value SHOULD be the fragment identifier or MUST be? Following the similar debate, the answer begs the question as to whether it is possible to define a "null" action (even if Action is required) or whether the proposed [action] values MAY contain URI values including, but not limited to, fragment identifiers of message reference components.  





Dr. Umit Yalcinalp
NetWeaver Standards
3401 Hillview Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel: (650) 320-3095 
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 02:03:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC