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

RE: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:34:01 -0600
To: "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>
Cc: "Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>, public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBD238EF7.D5922AE9-ON85257624.006B721C-85257624.006B7F8C@us.ibm.com>
I believe that the attached version ('dug5') shows the changes that Li is 
suggesting.


thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



"Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
09/01/2009 02:32 PM

To
"Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
cc
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
RE: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal






Gil,
 
First, I was not asking to undelete that paragraph you?re referring to. 
Rather, I was trying to tie the common concept of ?Event Types? defined in 
A.1 to the Notification WSDL (NW) option in A.3, to make the two options 
complete and independent. To achieve this, I proposed this statement for 
A.3:
 
            The Events and Notifications MAY be described via WSDL?
 
Otherwise, it may appear that ?Event Types? is only relevant to the Event 
Description option in A.2, and the NW option is thus incomplete and 
dependent on A.2. This is of course neither the WG consensus nor your 
intention on this issue.
 
However, if you think that NW should not be tied to ?Event Types?, then we 
could merge section A.1 into A.2, to make the two options self-contained. 
This approach could work too because people have been doing events with 
WSDL without resorting to the concept of ?Event Types? at all. With this 
refactoring, the appendix A looks like this based on Doug?s version [1]:
 
A 
(no change)
 
A.1 Event Descriptions Option
(previous A.1 + previous A.2)
 
A.2 Notification WSDL Option
(previous A.3 no change)
I?m open to either approach, as long as it satisfies our agreement that 
these two options are independent. Thanks.
Li  
[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/att-0061/ws-eventing-6401-6-dug2.doc

From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Li, Li (Li)
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal
 
Li,

I think the sentence you are referring to is, in fact, incorrect. It would 
have been more accurate to say:

"The portTypes contain operations which may or may not map to the Events 
that are transmitted."

There are a number of reasons why it might not be possible to map from an 
operation to an Event (or Event Type).

1.) Wrapped Notifications deliberately avoid any linkage between the 
Notify element that the Event's it contains.

2.) The /portType/operation/input/@message may refer to a /message who's 
'part' element contains a @type (that refers to an XML Schema type) and 
not an @element (which refers to a XML Schema GED). Since we defined Event 
Types in terms of GED's, what you end up with is similar-but-not-really an 
Event Type. You certainly can't construct an XPath 1.0-based filter when 
all you know is the schema type.

3.) The /portType/operation/input/@message may refer to a /message with 
more than one 'part' element. Unless you understand the details of the 
Notification Format that corresponds to this Notification WSDL, it is hard 
to determine which part is the 'event part' and which is 'other stuff'. It 
is entirely possible for the event information to be split between two or 
more parts.

Even in situations in which there is a an unambiguous linkage from 
/portType/operation/input/@message --> /message/part/@element --> GED, we 
would need to describe this linkage, the constraints on the Notification 
WSDL that make it possible, and the Notification Formats for which it is 
valid. This would add a great deal of complexity to what is already a 
fairly complex subject and it is not clear to me that this increase in 
complexity would yield a corresponding increase in either clarity or 
functionality.

- gp

On 8/28/2009 11:57 AM, Li, Li (Li) wrote: 
... It worth noting that this was part of the 
proposal that was originally sent in - I didn't change this sentence.
 
Doug:
 
Yes, that sentence was in Gil's proposal to the WG
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0
058.html). However, your change
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/a
tt-0061/ws-eventing-6401-6-dug2.doc) deleted the following sentences: 
 
Notification WSDLs contain abstract port types and concrete bindings. 
The port types contain operations that correspond to the Events that 
are transmitted. The bindings describe the Notification Formats (e.g. 
Unwrapped or Wrapped) for those Events.
 
Those sentences define what a Notification WSDL may contain: Events and
Notification Format. That's why I added a few words to retain the above
meaning. If we remove them completely, we lost what a Notification WSDL
can do in general. 
 
Thanks,
 
Li
 
 
 
 


Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:35:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:13 GMT