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

Re: proposal for eliminating message

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:13:56 -0800
Message-ID: <3E29A774.5070907@webmethods.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
This seems pretty reasonable to me.  One change I would like to 
recommend is, to split the typeIndicators into two separate attributes 
so that it is easily extensible others in future if needed. I.e. instead 
of having separate attribute name based the type-system (xsd/MIME etc.), 
have one attribute that identifies the type system and the other the 
value in the specific type system.

Instead of the  proposed syntax for type indicators are as follows:

xsdType="qname"
xsdElement="qname"
mimeType="string"
  
  

We would have typeSystem="URI" type="value" (a string which is a QName 
for XSD). Do we still need to distinguish between "Type" and "Element" 
forms?

With this change,  the example could look as follows:

<portType name="ArchivalService">
   <operation name="StoreRecords">
      <input name="patient" typeSystem="<URI for xsd Type>" type="x:PatientIdentificationType"/>
      <input name="xrays" typeSystem="<URI for MIME Type>" type="image/jpg" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <input name="reports" typeSystem="<URI for xsd Element>" type="y:LabReport" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <output typeSystem="<URI for xsd Type>" type="anyURI"/>
      <fault  typeSystem="<URI for xsd Type>" type="z:SomethingWrong"/>
   </operation>
   ... other operations ...
</portType>

Will this work?

Regards, Prasad


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: proposal for eliminating message
Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:05:52 -0500 (EST)
Resent-From: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 02:30:27 -0500
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>



Attached is an attempt at a compromise proposal for removing the
 construct.

Sanjiva.

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   Removing Message
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana, January 18, 2003
>
>
>     1. Introduction
>
> This document proposes a mechanism for eliminating the <message> 
> construct from WSDL. The proposed approach attempts at a compromise 
> between the two extreme positions possible (keep message and replace 
> with just a single complex type). 
>
> The proposal is written using the shortcut syntax, but can easily be 
> re-written using the interaction patterns syntax if desired.
>
>
>     2. Undertanding <message>
>
> The <message> construct in WSDL was created to address the requirement 
> that messages often consist of more than one "thing" that needs to be 
> sent. These "things" are typically related, but not logically part of 
> one large structure. The most prevalent example is that of some 
> request sent along with related information (documents). The related 
> information may be sent as attachments, but that's a question of the 
> message serialization used and not an issue at the abstract level of 
> service description.
>
> I believe that the concept of a message consiting of multiple parts is 
> very real and very much required. However, the use of a new construct, 
> <message>, to represent such messages have caused much grief.
>
> As things stand today, the <message> construct defines a message as 
> consisting of a set of parts, where each part is typed by some type 
> system. The immediately supported type system is XML Schema, using the 
> attributes "type" or "element".
>
>
>     3. Proposal
>
> The new syntax proposal is as follows:
>
>1 <portType name="ncname">
>2    <operation name="ncname">+
>3      <input [name="xsd:string"] type-indicator [cardinality-indicator]/>*
>4      <output [name="xsd:string"] type-indicator [cardinality-indicator]/>*
>5      <fault type-indicator/>*
>6    </operation>
>7 </portType>
>
> Lines 2-6 define an input-output or input-only operation. Operations 
> have names and indicate zero or more things that may be sent as input 
> (line 3), zero or more things that the service may generate in 
> response (line 4) and zero or more fault types, one of which the 
> service may send instead of a response (line 5). Each "thing" is typed 
> using some type system and indicates its cardinality. Each "thing" may 
> optionally be named so as to allow bindings to be selective about 
> which parts go where in building a wire format. Note that at least one 
> input or output must be specified and that the lack of any inputs 
> indicates that the
>
> How does one specify the type? WSDL 1.1 supported XML Schema types and 
> elements and left room for other type systems. I propose WSDL 1.2 
> explicitly support XML Schema and the MIME type systems. The proposed 
> syntaxes for type indicators are as follows:
>
>xsdType="qname"
>xsdElement="qname"
>mimeType="string"
>  
>
> Thus, any input, output or fault could be typed using XML Schema or 
> MIME. Other type systems will be supported via extensibility.
>
> How does one specify the cardinality? One of the issues we've had with 
> the <message> construct is that it did not allow one to specify that a 
> part is optional, or that a part may repeat and so on. While it is not 
> desired to re-invent XML Schema's mechanisms for indicating 
> cardinality, it is indeed useful to be able assert some of that 
> information. I propose we select a compromise position whereby we 
> allow any input, output or fault to indicate its "minOccurs" and 
> "maxOccurs" cardinality, where minOccurs and maxOccurs are defined as 
> per XML Schema. The proposed syntax is as follows:
>
><(input|output|fault) [name="xsd:string"] type-indicator [minOccurs="int"] [maxOccurs="int"]/>
>
> As with XML Schema, the default value for minOccurs and maxOccurs will 
> be 1 and "unbounded" is used to indicate infinity.
>
>
>     4. Relationship to Interaction Patterns Proposal
>
> The interaction patterns proposal has been updated to reflect the 
> impact of this proposal and is sent along with this (see 
> interaction-patterns-jan-18-2003.html).
>
>
>     5. Example
>
> Consider a medical records archival service. One of the operations 
> offered could be to store a patient record as a patient is being 
> discharged from a hospital. The information to be sent to the archival 
> service includes the patient identification information, copies of all 
> of the X-Ray images that were taken during the hospital stay, and 
> copies of all laboratory reports. The service wil return an 
> identification token to be used when requesting the data at a later time.
>
> The following portType fragment illustrates how this functionality 
> will be expressed using the proposed new syntax:
>
><portType name="ArchivalService">
>   <operation name="StoreRecords">
>      <input name="patient" xsdType="x:PatientIdentificationType"/>
>      <input name="xrays" mimeType="image/jpg" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>      <input name="reports" xsdElement="y:LabReport" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>      <output xsdType="anyURI"/>
>      <fault xsdType="z:SomethingWrong"/>
>   </operation>
>   ... other operations ...
></portType>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 18 January 2003 14:14:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT