W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2003

RE: SOAP UML diagram

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:00:09 -0700
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003901c32ae4$ab016010$da0ba8c0@beasys.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Martin Chapman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram
>
>
> > Some comments:
> > - I believe that a body is a header that is targetted at
> the ultimate
> > receiver
>
> The 1.2 doc doesn't really say that, and makes a point at
> keeping the header
> and body concepts quite separate.
> Looking at the rules for the contents, both are identical except that
> headers may have role, mustunderstand and relay attributes.
> From a modelling perspective this actually makes a header a
> subclass of
> body!!!! Since thats not really how its presented in 1.2 I suggest we
> avoid this trout!
>

The body effectively has role=ultimate receiver and mustUnderstand=true.
How does "refining" something make it a parent in modelling?  Headers have
these things being optional and a body effectively has them set.  Therefore,
body is-a header.

Now MB makes the assertion that this was disproven on dist-app, but darned
if I can find the discussion.

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 17:59:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:20 GMT