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 15:59:54 -0700
To: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com.beasys.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004a01c32aed$037a0550$da0ba8c0@beasys.com>

Aha.  Found the discussion.  It appears I was not active on xmlp at the time
so I'd missed the discussion.  Muchos gracias for the dated WDs.

Kind of neat that my erroneous assertion is a fairly obvious logical
factoring attempt given the diagrams.  The rationale seems quite reasonable
for why a body isn't a header, particularly around the processing model for
mU and the intent of the body versus header.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com.beasys.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:28 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram
>
>
> It is not a header block, even if it has *similar* semantics
> to a header
> block with
> mU='true' and
> role='http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/ultimate
> Receiver'.
>
> The SOAP1.2 spec used to contain language that suggested that the
> SOAP:Body
> had a relationship to a header block[1]. However, that language was
> removed in
> subsequent drafts, e.g. [2] as a result of the discussion
> that Mark cited.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#N40069A
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/#soapbody
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624
>
> www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 06/04/2003 06:00:09 PM:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----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 18:59:12 GMT

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