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

Re: proposal for resolving service type issues

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:30:34 +0200
Message-ID: <3D04E23A.A470FC0C@crf.canon.fr>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
CC: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Sanjiva, I like your proposal. In particular, I think there is a
lot of merit in bringing the notion of an abstract service into
the foreground. Please find my comments below.

Jean-Jacques.

> We require that all services defined in a single document be of
a single
> service type.

This is fine...

> That type is indicated by inserting the following required
declaration:
>
>      <implements serviceType="qname"/>

... however I don't think we can require the wsdl:implement
element to be always present. For example, the WSDL file may only
contain an abstract service declaration, which is refined and
implemented in a second WSDL file. I think wsld:implement should
be optional unless there is a concrete service definition (i.e.
binding), in which case it should be mandatory.

> two portTypes are said to be equivalent iff they have the same
qualified
> name.

Hmmm... somebody could get it wrong and you could end up with two
portType with the same qname but different children EIIs. It's
probably not our business, though, and more like a programmer's
bug.
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 13:32:04 GMT

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