W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2006

RE: Review of Authoritative Metadata

From: Rice, Ed (ProCurve) <ed.rice@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:23:45 -0800
Message-ID: <7D6953BFA3975C44BD80BA89292FD60E048E0161@cacexc08.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>


>I don't think so.  WSDL may define the rules for constructing a SOAP
message, but the 
>recipient has to read the message to determine what the message means.
WSDL is OOB data
>that isn't even relevant unless the SOAP metadata references the WSDL,
in which case the
>SOAP metadata is authoritative because that is where the decision is
made.


>I think you are confusing authoritative with definitive.  The WSDL is
definitive once it 
>is referenced by the SOAP message, but the SOAP message is being
authoritative when it 
>references the WSDL definition.

Yes, however, the WSDL is used in discovery as well.  So the web service
and the description can be 'discovered' which then points to the
existing web service.

>If the SOAP message is well-formed but incorrect, then the fact that
the message 
>references the WSDL allows the processor to determine that the message
is incorrect.  It 
>does not change the meaning of the message.  This would be in contrast
to a SOAP message 
>that doesn't reference the WSDL at all -- the request may succeed or
fail, but the message 
>is assumed correct because there is nothing (aside from the SOAP
messaging format) to 
>measure its correctness against.

Ah, but isn't that my point?  If the 'message is incorrect' based on the
WSDL, but looking just as the xml document itself it looks ok.. Then
your making an external file the authority to determine if its correct
or not?  Doesn't that go against section 3?

>In any case, SOAP messaging has no connection to the Web, AFAICT, and
certainly doesn't 
>adhere to Web architecture, so I have a hard time caring whether or not
it fits the 
>finding (even when it does).

Interesting.. So web services have nothing to do with the web? Does that
mean the XML Protocol Working Group is not subject to the TAG then?  ;)
Seriously, I think the web is more than just HTML and since the TAG is
also being asked questions on things like XML versioning, semantic web,
privacy, mobility etc.. We should either include them in our discussion
or explicitly exclude them from the finding.

99.9% of the paper is fantastic.. I'm just stuck on this as to how it
relates to the 'rest' of the web (including web services, semantic web
etc..)
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 22:24:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:39 GMT