W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Comment on Fragment Identifiers

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: jonathan@wso2.com, public-ws-policy@w3.org, ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, dorchard@bea.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20061221175815.fe25f115.alewis@tibco.com>

Not replying for the group, but I believe that I understand the question and the mistaken assumption within it.  :-)

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:44:42 -0800
Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>We are wondering why the designators use "in" and "our" given that the
>actual WSDL message labels are "input" and "output"?

In fact, we do not use "in" or "out".  We use the messageLabel specified in the message exchange pattern.  In part two, all of the message labels in all of the message exchange patterns are restricted to the set "In" and "Out" (note capitalization).  In the particular example cited, which relies on the in-out pattern, there are two messages, one labelled "In" and one labelled "Out".

"input" and "output" are nowhere used as message labels.  They are the local names of element information items in the WSDL 2.0 syntax.  These element information items are not referenced in the syntax of component designators, although as a class, they can be identified with the combination of .interfaceMessageReference() with their unique identifiers (ticketAgent/reserveFlight/In and ticketAgent/reserveFlight/Out in the example).

>Was this a conscious decision of the WSDL WG?

Yes.  There may be more than one [input] element information item or more than one [output] element information item in an interface operation in a valid WSDL, but all of the {messageLabel} properties of all of the {interfaceMessageReference} components of an interface operation MUST be unique.

>This apparent discrepancy can be seen in the examples in Appendix C.2
>of the WSDL 2.0 Candidate Recommendation [1].
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060327/#Iri-ref-ex

I hope that the above explanation clarifies matters.  It may behoove us to make some sort of explanation of this sort publicly available, as it appears to be on its way to being a FAQ.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 22:59:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:44 GMT