Re: proposal for resolving service type issues

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.