W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2005

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

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:27:47 -0800
Message-ID: <41E2D733.4090306@oracle.com>
To: michael.eder@nokia.com
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

michael.eder@nokia.com wrote:
> 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.
> 

Perhaps.

The question I'm trying to raise is that if the semantics for two 
messages, in say two "in-only" operations in the same WSDL 
interface/portType, are the same, why are they two *different* operations?

-Anish
--

> - 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 Monday, 10 January 2005 19:28:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:01 GMT