W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > August 2006

FW: Review of WS-A WSDL Binding

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:35:26 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E803D6382D@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comment, and apologizes for reporting our resolution so
belatedly.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a
CR018 [1].

 

The Working Group accepted your proposal.  This resolution is reflected
in the latest draft [2].

 

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of September, we will assume
you agree with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR018 

[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?cont
ent-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#wsdllocation 

 

 

________________________________

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:59 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Review of WS-A WSDL Binding

 


Jonathan, 

I'll implement #3. 

I think we could make some editorial improvements re #2. I'm glad the
intension of the spec is to allow reference to <description> elements,
but if I as an editor forgot that, then maybe the text is unclear.
Normally, when the term "document" is used, it means a complete XML
document rooted at the "document element".  I looked at the spec and I
can't see where we define WSDL 2.0 document to be a description element.
I suggest we revise the spec so that wherever we allow an IRI to a WSDL
2.0 document we change it as follows: 

"The IRI is the location of a WSDL 2.0 document or a <description>
element information items within an XML document." 

Perhaps put this text in chapter 7 [1] and refer to it from elsewhere in
the spec. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#wsdllocation 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 



"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

02/28/2006 06:07 AM 

To

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org> 

cc

 

Subject

RE: Review of WS-A WSDL Binding

 

 

 




Thanks for the review!  The WG discussed these as indicated below: 
  

 

________________________________


From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 7:59 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Review of WS-A WSDL Binding 
  

As per my action item, here are my comments on [1]. 

1. Section 2 introduces some elements, <wsaw:InterfaceName>,
<wsaw:ServiceName> for refering to WSDL Interface, Service, and Endpoint
components. The same result could be achieved by using the IRI-reference
component designators defined in WSDL 2.0 Part 1, Appendix A. 

These elements have to refer to WSDL 1.1 constructs as well, this and
other reasons (e.g. difficult syntax) we did not have consensus to
recommend to the WS-A WG that they should consider component
designators. 
  

2. Section 2 also defines the use of embedding WSDL in <wsa:Metadata>
which indicates that people think it's useful to embed WSDL in other XML
documents. This raises a question about WSDL 2.0. In <include>,
<import>, and @wsdlLocation a location is specified. The spec says this
location should dereference to a WSDL 2.0 document. Should it also be
allowed to derefence to an element in an XML document, e.g. via a
fragment id? This is the case for XML Schema. 

We recall we defined "WSDL 2.0 document" specifically as a
<wsdl20:description> element, which should enable fragment ids to work.
If you think this is no longer the case we should raise it as an issue. 
  

3. Section 3.1 defines the <wsaw:UsingAddressing> Extension Element. I
have a question about terminology. Our spec is inconsistent. Sometimes
we say Extensibility element and sometimes Extension element. I suggest
we use Extension element and attribute throughout, rather than
Extensibility.  I think this is purely editorial. I'll make the change
if no one objects. 

Agreed. 
  

4. The XML example 4-1 is wrong since it uses <definition> as the root
element. It should use <description> 

Will forward. 

5. Section 4.3 defines the use of <wsa:ReferenceParameters> but does not
say how this affects the WSDL 2.0 component model. Does this add a
property to Endpoint? 

Will forward. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-addr-wsdl-20060216/ 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 20:35:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT