W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > September 2004

Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL constructs

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:58:17 -0400
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040914155817.GD25495@w3.org>
Appendix C in Part 1 is not very visible despite being useful, and is
incomplete.

First, I believe that we should point to Appendix C every time we talk
about not being able to a component by a simple QName, such as in
sections 2.3.1, 2.4.1 and 2.14.1, but there may be others that I have
missed.

Second, section C.2 is lacking references for the following components
in order for us to fulfill R120, "The description language MUST ensure
that all conceptual elements in the description of Messages are
addressable by a URI reference"; I am proposing some solutions:
- message reference: messageref(interface/operation/direction/label);
- fault reference: faultref(interface/operation/direction/label/ref);
- binding fault: bindingfault(binding/ref);
- binding operation: bindingoperation(binding/ref);
- binding message reference:
  bindingmessageref(binding/operation/direction/label).

Third, some of the construct names in the first column are not
corresponding exactly to components names:
- s/operation/interface operation/;
- s/fault/interface fault/.

Finally, I find the the x / y convention hard to read. What about
something like:

  endpoint: _endpoint_ being the {name} property of endpoint and
  _service_ being the {name} property of parent service:
  endpoint(_service_/_endpoint_)

with _foo_ being typographically different, e.g. in italic?

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 21:58:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT