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

RE: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:05:24 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5077F833C@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@enigmatec.net>
Cc: "WS-Choreography List" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thank you for your comment.  We have incorporated the resolutions
detailed below into the latest Working Drafts [1, 2].  We expect to have
another brief Last Call period soon.  We'll assume you are satisfied
with the resolutions below unless we hear from you within two weeks.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-adjuncts-20050510

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Ross-Talbot [mailto:steve@enigmatec.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:10 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: WS-Choreography List; W3C Group; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> I am writing to you on behalf of the W3C Choreography Working Group.
> As
> promised we have reviewed the WSDL2.0
> documents at our Face to Face meeting. Our comments and requirements
> are as follows:
> 
> 1. We would like to see the Web Services Description Working Group
> define bindings for the 4 remaining MEPs for which
>      no bindings have been defined or we would like them removed from
> the specification.

Tracked as LC59a [3], the WG agreed to mark In-Optional-Out and
Out-Optional-In as at risk when entering CR and plans to remove these
two MEPs unless we see 2 interoperable implementations.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59a

> 2. WSDL2.0 is unclear about it's support for attachment technologies
> and this is a concern to us. We would like to see
>      some clarity with respect to what and how attachment technologies
> will be supported. We have spent some time looking
>      at the WS-I AP1.0 profile  as an exemplar and would greatly
> appreciate clarity on what you intend to support and how it
>      might differ from AP1.0.

Tracked as LC59b [4], the WG closed this issue with no change to the
Last Call specs.  WSDL already has features to support MTOM, as
illustrated in the Primer [5].  The SOAP 1.1 binding is not part of
these Last Call specs, and support for SwA is not part of our plan.

[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59b 
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-primer-20050510/#adv-MTOM

> 3. We recommend that a section is added describing the differences
> between WSDL1.0 and WSDL2.0. This should
>      include differences in MEP's between the two specifications.

Tracked as LC59c [6], the WG was unable to devote resources to take on
more non-specification material than we already have [7] in this area.
Third parties should be able to fill this need.

[6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59c 
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/#migration

> 4. We seek clarification in the text of WSDL2.0 as to the use of
> wsdlLocation.

Tracked as LC59d [8], the WG agreed to add additional introductory
material on the expected usage for wsdlLocation.  The proposal [9] has
been incorporated into the spec.

[8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59d 
[9]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0169.html#item06

> 5. We seek clarification in the text of WSDL 2.0 for component-to-XML
> InfoSet mapping, to address issues such as how
>       serialization is performed in a manner compatible with XML
> Schema.

Tracked as LC59e [10], the WG did not agree to add anything to the spec
as the result.  We have added constraints to the component model to
ensure it can be serialized, and we provide a mapping to XML which
should provide adequate information to enable serialization.  We don't
see value in providing a canonical serialization. 

[10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59e

> 6. As we indicated in a previous letter to you [url] we are pleased to
> see the presence of F&P and intend to use this in our
>      work.

Thank you for your support.  As it does not ask for any changes, we did
not track this as a Last Call comment.

> 7. We noted that the previous composistors work within WSD WG has not
> made it into the last call document, and similar
>      to point 6, this is a capability that we need and would use if it
> were present.

Tracked as LC59f [11], the WG notes your support.  Since there are
outstanding formal objections in this area we will handle your support
procedurally - that is, use this data point as part of the adjudication
of the formal objections.  No change to the spec has been made to date.

[11] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59f

> I you have any questions or wish to seek clarification from the Web
> Services Choreography WG please do not hesitate to
> contact us.
> 
> Best of luck in your endeavours.
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Steve Ross-Talbot
> co-Chair W3C Web Services Choreography
> 
> C: +44 7855 268 848
> H: +44 1273 491841
> www.enigmatec.net
> 
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 20:05:40 GMT

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