W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

RE: R067 and R967a: extensibility

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:46:45 -0800
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1065B6D73@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Igor, I agree that the constructions defined in WSDL should be
extensible; R067 enumerates the constructions defined in WSDL, but the
intent might be clearer if the requirement referred to constructions as
a set. In the next draft, I reworded R067 to the following:

 

R067 [?Modify?, Draft, Must, WG] The WG will ensure that there are
adequate points of extensibility in ?each construction defined by WSDL
(e.g., Operation, Interface, ...).? (Last discussed 4 Apr 2002.)

 

I also agree that any extensions should themselves be appropriately
extensible ("ability to define extensible"), but shouldn't the
characteristics of an extension be the sovereignty of the extension, not
WSDL?

 

--Jeff

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 3:30 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: R067 and R967a: extensibility

 

As a followup to the conf.call discussion: 

R067: would refer to "the extensibility of the definitions mandated by
the WSDL specification" 
R067a: would refer to "the ability to define extensible
(application-specific) metadata around constructs mandated by the WSDL
specification"

Here is the semantic difference: 

Results of R067 would allow one to define a WSDL-derived specification
with basic constructs defined by WSDL itself and extra constructs
defined by extensions. For instance, bindings as defined now fall into
this category. We just have to cover other constructs similarly.

Here is an example where elements in bold define extensions of the
definitions. 
<message name="nmtoken"> *
<-- extensibility element (1) --> *
<part name="nmtoken" element="qname"? type="qname"> *
<-- extensibility element (2) --> *
</part>
</message> 

Results of R067a would, for instance, allow one to include a link to a
UML diagram of a use case as a metadata element for a definition of a
service.

Here is the actual example. 
<extend xmlns:myExt="...">
<myExt:useCase id="purchaseOrder" UML="http://mycorp/usecases/PO.vsd"/>
</extend>
<service extend="purchaseOrder" ... 
or 
<service ... >
<extend name="purchaseOrder" xmlns:myExt="...">
<myExt:useCase id="purchaseOrder" UML="http://mycorp/usecases/PO.vsd"/>
</extend>
</service> 

And this is something I should be able to use as follows (UC0026) 
NodeList ext = client.getService().getExtend(); 
Element useCase = (Element)NodeList.item(0); 
URL linkToUML = new URL(useCase.getAttribute("UML")); 

 

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com) 
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788 

 
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 12:50:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT