W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > July 2006

Re: WSDL 1.1 Support

From: Mihail Konstantinov <mihail.konstantinov@ontotext.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:17:09 +0300
Message-ID: <44BCED65.2080701@ontotext.com>
To: public-ws-semann@w3.org

Dear all,

What about annotating PortType OperationS in WSDL 1.1?
According to the XSD schema (http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/) in 
Operation elements attribute extensions are not allowed - only element 
extensions.

Regards,
Mihail


Venezia Claudio wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Our main concern was the importance to state clearly on the document 
> that these mechanisms apply also to “legacy” Web Services. This is 
> done and can be even enforced by providing a running translation 
> example (related to the one in Appendix A) as John and Kunal suggested.
>
> We tried to apply the sawsdl spec to Telecom Italia use case (Parlay X 
> WS 1.1) by means of the mapping rules indicated in “3. WSDL 1.1 
> Support”. The conclusion is that section 3 of the document effectively 
> helps the user to apply these annotation mechanisms also to WSDL 1.1 
> based services. And it shouldn’t be that tough to create automatic 
> translation rules (e.g. from WSDL1.1 to WSDL2.0 or vice versa) which 
> can handle also the semantic annotation porting.
>
> We also agree with related things 1,2,3 and would suggest another:
>
> The mapping between interface and operation in fact works. John and 
> Kunal correctly added that interfaces do even support inheritance. 
> What happens to the semantic annotations in this case, an interface 
> extending another does actually inherit its semantic annotations? Does 
> the same apply to the inherited operations? Shouldn’t we tackle it on 
> the document?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Claudio
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: public-ws-semann-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-semann-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kunal Verma
>
> Sent: martedì 11 luglio 2006 18.01
>
> To: SAWSDL public list
>
> Subject: WSDL 1.1 Support
>
> Claudio and Jacek,
>
> As a start on our action item, we made a few changes and additions to 
> section 3 of the document (see below). We also suggest adding Appendix 
> D (moving the current D to E, etc.) that shows the complete running 
> example in annotated WSDL 1.1. Finally a few related things are mentioned.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John and Kunal
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. WSDL 1.1 Support
>
> The mechanism for semantic annotation described in this specification 
> can also be applied to WSDL 1.1 [WSDL 1.1] conformant Web services 
> descriptions.
>
> All the XML attributes defined in this specification apply without 
> modification to the WSDL 1.1 descriptions.
>
> However, in some cases they are applied to different elements in the 
> WSDL document structure.
>
> Input and Output
>
> Annotation of XML Schema types with modelReference, 
> liftingSchemaMapping or loweringSchemaMapping can be accomplished 
> using the approach described for annotating these elements in WSDL 2.0.
>
> In addition, a liftingSchemaMapping, loweringSchemaMapping or 
> modelReference attribute may be added to a part element (under a 
> message element) to specify an input or output annotation that applies 
> to a part of a message.
>
> These elements are part of the portType structure in WSDL 1.1 which 
> generally corresponds to the WSDL 2.0 interface structure. One 
> difference is that that portTypes do not support inheritance (extends 
> relation).
>
> Faults
>
> In WSDL 1.1, faults are specified as messages that are generated when 
> a particular condition arises.
>
> Annotations for fault messages are done just as annotations are done 
> for any other output message.
>
> Operations
>
> An operation is annotated as in WSDL 2.0.
>
> portTypes
>
> A portType is annotated in the same way as a WSDL 2.0 interface.
>
> Running Example in WSDL 1.1
>
> The same running example as shown in Appendix A, is reproduced in 
> Append D with minimal changes. In particular, the following changes 
> were necessary:
>
> 1. ?
>
> 2. ?
>
> Further examples, including one with annotated message parts, are 
> shown in the Use Cases and Examples document.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Found a couple of related things:
>
> 1. Perhaps we should say before or after showing the WSDL Running 
> example in section 1.4, that a complete annotated version is given in 
> Appendix A.
>
> Might also be useful to highlight the annotations in Appendix A 
> somehow (bold, italics or font change). This makes it easier to pick 
> out the annotations.
>
> 2. The following sentence seems to be missing something:
>
> "The complete wsdl file is given below and available as separate 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/wsdl/order# 
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/wsdl/order>."
>
> 3. Has the example in the appendix been validated?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
> above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
> the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
> is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
> the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by
> replying to webmaster@telecomitalia.it 
> <mailto:webmaster@telecomitalia.it>.
> Thank you
> www.telecomitalia.it <http://www.telecomitalia.it>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2006 14:57:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:14:27 GMT