W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > October 2009

RE: Issue 7912 (Action 118): Proposal for "Consider using Dialect Identifier for implicit operation WSDL? "

From: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:29:50 +0000
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
CC: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <503546C5699C1144BDEA0D0DFFE7F88118155393@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Hi Katy,

I have a few editorial comments.


  An endpoint MAY indicate support for a specific feature (e.g. a specification) and the corresponding feature operations by inclusion of a policy  assertion within its WSDL.  In such a case, the feature's operations do not explicitly appear in the endpoint's WSDL.

For consistency across all three parts of the proposal, I suggest rephrasing the above as follows:

"An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports a specific feature by including the feature's policy assertion within its WSDL. By doing so, the endpoint is indicating that corresponding operations (if any) are supported by that endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear in its WSDL".


  An example of this is an endpoint indicating its conformation to the WS-Transfer [WS-Transfer] definition

s/an endpoint indicating its conformation to the WS-Transfer/an endpoint that indicates the use of WS-Transfer/


  If the WSDL includes a wsdl:service element then the endpoint indicated within the WSDL MUST be used for the operations defined by this WSDL document.

Since this text restates the normal WSDL semantics, I suggest removing this.

Thanks.

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Katy Warr
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 6:27 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Cc: Doug Davis
Subject: Issue 7912 (Action 118): Proposal for "Consider using Dialect Identifier for implicit operation WSDL? "


Further to the last meeting, here is a complete proposal for http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7912 for the action (http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/118) against Doug and me.

1) WS-Transfer (and equivalent in other specs)

Keep:
- - - - -
An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports WS-Transfer, or its features, by including the WS-Transfer Policy assertion within its WSDL. By doing so the endpoint is indicating that the corresponding WS-Transfer operations are supported by that endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear in its WSDL (i.e. the WSDL that MAY be retrievable by using a WS-MetadataExchange GetMetadata with a Dialect IRI of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/).

But drop:
- - - - - - - -
An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WS-Transfer WSDL by using the following WS-MetadataExchange Dialect:

Dialect IRI                                                                           @Identifier value
========================================================
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-tra/TransferWSDL  Not defined

The WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used to protect the WS-Transfer operations supported by this endpoint.


2) To the end of the 'keep' part above,

add:
 - - - -
The WS-Transfer WSDL containing the operations indicated by the TransferResource Assertion MAY be exposed as described in WS-MetadataExchange [WS-Mex] section 9 . This WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used to protect the WS-Transfer operations supported by this endpoint.


3)  WS-MetadataExchange

Add section 9 :
- - - - - - - - - - -

9. Exposing WSDL for Operations Implicitly Defined by a Policy Assertion

An endpoint MAY indicate support for a specific feature (e.g. a specification) and the corresponding feature operations by inclusion of a policy  assertion within its WSDL.  In such a case, the feature's operations do not explicitly appear in the endpoint's WSDL.  An example of this is an endpoint indicating its conformation to the WS-Transfer [WS-Transfer] definition of a Transfer Resource by the use of the wstrp:TransferResource WS-Policy [WS-Policy] assertion.

An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WSDL of the policy defined feature by using the http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ dialect and the dialect identifier of the target namespace of the feature.

Dialect IRI                                                      @ Identifier value                                                                                   Metadata returned
====================================================================================================
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/        target namespace of endpoint                                                          Endpoint WSDL
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/        target namespace of feature supported by the endpoint         Feature WSDL

The Feature WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used to protect the feature's operations supported by this endpoint.  If the WSDL includes a wsdl:service element then the endpoint indicated within the WSDL MUST be used for the operations defined by this WSDL document.


________________________________


Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 22:30:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:14 GMT