W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2003

RE: write-up of interaction patterns

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:08:32 -0800
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> If you wanted to write the same WSDL from the perspective of the
> sender (node
> "A") you could just flip it:
> <operation mep="request-response-uri" role="node-A-uri">
>   <output message="someMessage" role="Request"/>
>   <input message="otherMessage" role="Response"/>
> </operation>
> Here's what I like about this:
> 1) it adds to the current syntax, rather than introducing yet
> another element
> to the language.
> 2) it maintains the "input" and "output" distinction, which might
> (or might
> not, I'm not 100% sure) be useful for certain tools, regardless of their
> understanding of the MEP involved.

Would that mean that a tool can decide to either look at the role attribute
or the element name to decide in which direction the message flows?

If it can get that information from the element name I don't see why the
role attribute is required. If the exact semantics are expressed in the role
attribute than the element name can be inconsistent with the role attribute,
allowing one tool to undestand it incorrectly and another tool to spot a

So I see a possible interoperability problem if one tool decides to only
look at part of the information and another tool decides to look at all the
information and they both disagree on what exactly the WSDL is trying to


> I like #1, but can certainly live without it as long as the same
> information is
> conveyed in the "<interaction>" model - so you'd need to add the "role"
> attribute to the <interaction> element to indicate which node in
> the MEP spec
> is being represented by the WSDL.  That said, I still have a
> preference for
> keeping <operation> and extending it.
> As for #2, I think it could be a benefit, but we'd need (as with
> much of this
> stuff) use cases to make sure.
> Sorry this is a bit brief, but I hope it elucidates a bit more of
> what I was
> proposing last week.
> --Glen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:35 PM
> Subject: write-up of interaction patterns
> At the last call I was asked to write up the interaction pattern stuff
> to try to get convergence. Document attached.
> Glen, I don't think I did justice to your preferred approach. Please
> edit as appropriate ..
> Bye,
> Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 15:12:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:41 UTC