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

RE: proposal for eliminating <message>

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 05:36:35 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDEA4AE8D.5F16C562-ON85256D5E.0033DBC0-85256D5E.0034C948@us.ibm.com>

Savas,

Please don't take my previous response to mean you shouldn't post your
comments questions, they are quite relevant and appropriate. More below.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

Savas Parastatidis wrote on 07/09/2003 05:02:19 AM:

> 
> <redfaced>
> 
> I know how to admit when I am wrong :-( Working late in to the night it
> didn't even occur to me that there isn't a problem with ordering of
> arguments because each element in the complexType has a name
> attribute!!! Doh! Need to go back to basics :-) Apologies.
> 
> </redfaced>

No worries:)

> 
> > With all due respect, I think it should be of concern for this group!
> > These specs cannot be developed in a vacuum, oblivious of one another.
> > I will grant that there shouldn't be excessive concern, but as with
> > sister WGs within the W3C, we should be making every effort to
> understand
> > what others are thinking of doing, building upon WSDL as a foundation
> > as does BPEL, as well as ensuring that the WSDL spec is consistent
> with
> > work that has gone before it...
> 
> Perhaps I didn't put it as elegantly as I could have but the reason I
> mentioned BPEL was because of my concern the effect such a change will
> have to a specification like this. Anyway. I don't disagree with your
> comment.
> 
> 
> I hope you won't mind if I continued with questions/suggestions on this
> new proposal. By rendering my comments wrong you'll be sure that at
> least some aspects are beyond doubt.

Please do continue with additional questions/comments!

> 
> So, what if I wanted to describe a specification that only used headers
> (e.g., for a SOAP actor)? Should the body attribute be optional as well?
> 

In Sanjiva's pseudo-schema mark-up, the @body attribute is optional.
Basically, anything inside square brackets '[' is optional, with choice 
being
denoted by multiple values separated by a pipe '|'.

Hence:

<operation name="ncname">
    <input [body="qname"|element="qname"] [headers="list-of-qnames"]/>
    <output [body="qname"|element="qname"] [headers="list-of-qnames"]/>
</operation>

The @body and @element attributes are optional, with there being a further
constraint that either @body or @element may appear in an <input> or 
<output>
element.

Note that the @header attribute is also optional in this pseudo-schema.

> 
> 
> Again, apologies for wasting your valuable time on this...
> 
> .savas.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 05:36:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:25 GMT