RE: Use case for DR053

Jochen,

I have added your use case.  I will be contacting you again to get some more
help with rewording it.  

As we submit more use cases, if we provide a 1-2 line definition of the use
case and then the detailed description, that will help tremendously with the
organization.

Thanks,

 
_______________________________________________
Waqar Sadiq
 
EDS EIT EASI - Enterprise Consultant
MS: H3-4C-22
5400 Legacy Drive
Plano, Texas 75024
 
phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837)
e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com
fax: +01-972-605-4071
_______________________________________________
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jochen.Ruetschlin@daimlerchrysler.com
[mailto:Jochen.Ruetschlin@daimlerchrysler.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:22 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Use case for DR053

Imagine a component framework in which components and their operations 
(building finally the component's functionality) should be described with
WSDL. 
In the framework the components are using operations from each other 
dynamically: in the program code there is no "hard-wired" function call but 
instead a "semantic description/reference" of what kind of operation to use,

which will be dissolved just in time bevore execution. With this "semantic 
description" a search for suitable operations could be started in a
(logical) 
centralized registry (maybe with UDDI). The registry contains (WSDL) 
information of all currently available components/operations within the 
framework. Result of the search query are the concrete binding parameters 
(protocol, URL, operation signature, etc.) of the matching operations.

Finding a suitable match _automatically_ (without manual/human interaction) 
will be done by searching in the registered WSDL files for the specified 
"semantic description". One half of this "semantic description" are the 
parameters defined with complex XML schema types. The other one should be
the 
determination of the operation (i.e. its functionality). But only
considering 
the operation name has the same drawbacks as comparing parameters only by
their 
name (or even simple types like integer, string, etc.): only operations with

exactly the same name as chosen from the operation's programmer are
returned. 
So with introducing a kind of "type system" for operations (or maybe a 
classification) would bring the benefit that the result set of the above 
mentioned query could return operations with different names, but which are 
implementing the same functionality/behaviour. With this it would also be 
possible to exchange one component (respectively their operation/s) with 
another independently developed one, which has the same functionality but
with 
(maybe only slightly) different operation name(s) - and this without further

manual interaction.

jr. 

Jochen Rütschlin
DaimlerChrysler · Research and Technology
Data and Process Management (RIC/ED)
P.O. Box 2360 · D-89013 Ulm (Donau) · Germany
Visitor's address: Wilhelm-Runge-Straße 11
Phone:   +49.731.505-2830
Telefax: +49.731.505-4401
Internet E-Mail: jochen.ruetschlin@DaimlerChrysler.com

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 09:59:31 UTC