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

Re: Draft wording for targetResource attribute

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:49:40 +0200
Message-ID: <3EE73374.3070607@crf.canon.fr>
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
CC: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Maybe then this should be captured in the Primer?

Jean-jacques.

David Booth wrote:

> 
> Jacek,
> 
> Sorry I neglected to specifically address this in my previous message.
> 
> I am assuming in your example that you meant the services to use the 
> same targetNamespace.  If so, it seems to me that (normally) you would 
> already have that kind of semantic equivalence, since the 
> targetNamespace indentifies the intended semantics[3].  However, in the 
> end, it will always depend on how the semantics of that particular 
> service are defined, which is outside of our scope to define.
> 
> For example:
> 
> <definitions targetNamespace="n" ...>
>   . . .
>   <service name="a" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
>    <port name="x">...</port>
>   </service>
> </definitions>
> 
> <definitions targetNamespace="n" ...>
>   . . .
>   <service name="b" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
>    <port name="y">...</port>
>   </service>
> </definitions>
> 
> Both services indicate the same targetNamespace ("n"), which is supposed 
> to unambiguously identify the semantics of the terms used in that 
> namespace[3].  Since service "a" and service "b" also indicate the same 
> WSDL interface ("i"), then it would be natural to make them semantically 
> equivalent, and doing so might be recommended "best practice".  But 
> since the semantics of the service are beyond the scope of the WSDL 
> specification, they COULD be defined differently.
> 
> In other words, it may be a good idea to make them equivalent in most 
> cases, and that may be a good thing to recommend as a "best practice", 
> but since the semantics of a service are not defined by the WSDL 
> specification, I don't think it's something that the WSDL specification 
> can meaningfully require.
> 
> 1. WSDL 1.2 draft: 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html#Service_resource_attribute 
> 
> 
> 2. TAG Web Arch: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#representations
> 
> 3. targetNamespace: 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html#Definitions_XMLRep 
> 
> 
> 4. Resource definition: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
> 
> 
> At 02:02 PM 6/10/2003 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 
>> David,
>>
>> I've fought on one telcon for the wording, whatever it ends up being, to
>> include the following explanation (not necessarily in the same words):
>>
>> Different ports in two services with the same interface and the same
>> targetResource are interchangeable in the same sense as different ports
>> within one service with that interface and targetResource. I.e. from the
>> point of view of the ports, it doesn't really matter if I write
>>
>> <service name="a" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
>>    <port name="x">...</port>
>> </service>
>> <service name="b" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
>>    <port name="y">...</port>
>> </service>
>>
>> or
>>
>> <service name="c" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
>>    <port name="x">...</port>
>>    <port name="y">...</port>
>> </service>
>>
>> It seemed to me that there was general agreement to this.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>                    Jacek Kopecky
>>
>>                    Senior Architect
>>                    Systinet Corporation
>>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:50:01 GMT

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