W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2007

RE: WSDL operation safety in SAWSDL?

From: Williams, Stuart \(HP Labs, Bristol\) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:43:29 -0000
Message-ID: <C4B3FB61F7970A4391A5C10BAA1C3F0D6ECAFC@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: "TAG mailing list" <www-tag@w3.org>

Jacek,

I will put discussion of this on the agenda for our next weekly meeting.

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: 19 February 2007 17:09
> To: TAG mailing list
> Subject: WSDL operation safety in SAWSDL?
> 
> 
> Dear TAG members, others, I'll be brief this time. 8-) 
> 
> I've asked on this list earlier [1], what anyone's thoughts 
> were on moving WSDL's safety annotation feature [2] to 
> SAWSDL, as it seems that safety is a perfect example of a 
> semantic annotation.
> 
> Both WSDL and SAWSDL are currently in CR, but WSDL is moving 
> fast towards PR, that's why any opinions especially from the 
> TAG members would be useful to us.
> 
> It seems that WSDL doesn't actually need the safety 
> annotation all that much for its function (see [3]). However, 
> the TAG requested that WSDL operations should have a marker 
> about their safety. This is implemented as an attribute in 
> WSDL2. Now that we have SAWSDL, it would seem to fit there 
> better. Do you perhaps think that marking safety in WSDL 
> using SAWSDL is less adequate than using a specific extension 
> attribute?
> 
> For more information, see [1].
> 
> Best regards,
> Jacek Kopecky
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Feb/0003.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#safety
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Feb/0007.html
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 09:47:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:45 GMT