W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > June 2005

Re: LC84b resolution

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:10:21 -0400
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B07559004209BFE@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Regarding LC84b, I really think that the inability to specify the action
for each message represents a significant factoring error.  WS
Addressing provides a fine mechanism for doing this, but the capability
belongs in WSDL natively: abstractly, there is hardly anything more
fundamental to the definition of an interface than the notion of what is
intended to happen when a particular message is received.  

Grouping messages into operations (via MEPs) is useful, but in reality
it is somewhat arbitrary, as the same sequence of messages could be
grouped in multiple ways.  But when a message is sent from one party to
another, there is almost always some kind of intent, whether it is
explicitly stated or not.  Furthermore, if an action attribute has a
reasonable default value in WSDL, then its existence would place no
burden on users that don't care about it.

Given that WS Addressing does fill the need for this, those who are
using WS Addressing would have no reason to care that it isn't in WSDL
natively.  But since WSDL is such a fundamental building block of the
Web services stack of standards, and this seems so fundamental to the
notion of an abstract interface, I really think WSDL is where it
belongs.

In summary, I will not ask the WG to reopen this, but I do think it is a
factoring error in the design of WSDL.

David Booth


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 5:34 PM
> To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: LC84a/b resolutions
> 
> 
> The remaining issues exposed in [1] have been resolved.
> Since the Operation Name Mapping Feature has been removed 
> from the Core spec (and is being generalized further in the 
> Primer, we felt that the remaining two issues LC84b [2] and 
> LC84c [3] could be closed with no further action.  If we 
> don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this 
> satisfies your concern.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/1110-dbooth-opname/slide25-0.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84b
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84c
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 25 June 2005 12:14:11 GMT

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