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

Re: issue: service type

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:06:37 +0200 (CEST)
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
cc: "'WS-Desc WG (Public)'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206061805340.32399-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 Sanjiva, 
 the problem is that with a QName, you don't know the location of 
the WSDL document that defines it. Remember, the namespace name 
doesn't have any meaning yet - the TAG is talking about what a 
namespace name should get you if dereferenced and there are 
various different opinions.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

 > 
 > Isn't there a TAG issue on how to map a QName to a URI? The
 > resolution of that would solve this.
 > 
 > What's the problem?
 > 
 > Sanjiva.
 > 
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
 > To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>; "Matt Long" <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
 > Cc: "'WS-Desc WG (Public)'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
 > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:34 PM
 > Subject: RE: issue: service type
 > 
 > 
 > >
 > > That sounds like a HUGE problem.  It would be horrible if one couldn't
 > > identify the service just by a URI.
 > >
 > > At 04:49 PM 6/5/2002 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > >
 > > >  Matt, one of the issues is that you cannot just pass a URL as a
 > > >pointer to a service, you need the service QName, too. And the
 > > >QName by itself is not sufficient either because you may not know
 > > >where a WSDL definition of that QName is located.
 > > >
 > > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > > >
 > > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
 > > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Matt Long wrote:
 > > >
 > > >  >
 > > >  > What issues(s) do multi-service WSDLs present?
 > > >  >
 > > >  >
 > > >  > -Matt Long
 > > >  > Phalanx Systems, LLC
 > > >  >
 > > >  > > -----Original Message-----
 > > >  > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
 > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
 > > >  > On
 > > >  > > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
 > > >  > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:47 PM
 > > >  > > To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
 > > >  > > Subject: Fw: issue: service type
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > > I posted this a while back, but there was literally no discussion
 > > >  > > that I can recall. Is this issue so boring??
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > > Also related is the following:
 > > >  > >     <issue id="issue-multiple-services">
 > > >  > >       <head>Should a single WSDL file only define one
 > service?</head>
 > > >  > >       WSDL 1.1 suppports having multiple services in a single WSDL
 > > >  > >       file. This has caused confusion amongst users.
 > > >  > >       <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
 > > >  > >     </issue>
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > > Anyone with opinions or can I resolve it myself? ;-)
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > > Sanjiva.
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > > ----- Original Message -----
 > > >  > > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
 > > >  > > To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
 > > >  > > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:29 AM
 > > >  > > Subject: issue: service type
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > > > I would like to open discussion on the following issue:
 > > >  > > >
 > > >  > > > <issue id="issue-service-type">
 > > >  > > >   <head>Should we have an abstract view of a service?</head>
 > > >  > > >   WSDL defines a service as a collection of ports, but there is
 > no
 > > >  > > >   abstract analog.
 > > >  > > >   <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
 > > >  > > > </issue>
 > > >  > > >
 > > >  > > >
 > > >  > > > Sanjiva.
 > > >  > > >
 > > >  >
 > > >  >
 > >
 > > --
 > > David Booth
 > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
 > > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
 > 
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 12:06:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT