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

Re: What WSDL defines - the diagram!

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:47:53 -0500
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>, Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, paul.downey@bt.com
Message-id: <018101c3a496$7d50e8d0$793212c0@MINIME>

+1, there is an implicit "processing model" which involves confirming that the
particular set of stuff your processor wants to deal with in a WSDL document is
correct.  That means no dups, all "wsdl:required" extensions are understood,
referred-to components exist, etc...  I don't think it's required that all WSDL
processors check the validity of stuff that they aren't dealing with (i.e.
unused interfaces/bindings/etc).

Of course since there's no implied API, we don't say anything about what you
have to *do* once you reach a "success" or "fail" state...

--Glen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>; "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>; "Mark
Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; <paul.downey@bt.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:38 PM
Subject: RE: What WSDL defines - the diagram!



I think the WSDL 2.0 spec does define certain things that a WSDL
processor MUST do. For example, check that no duplicate definitions
exist.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: 06 November 2003 06:51
> To: Anne Thomas Manes; Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; paul.downey@bt.com
> Subject: Re: What WSDL defines - the diagram!
>
>
> P.S. The greater significance of the diagram is not so much
> in what it includes but what it omits.  In particular, it
> says nothing about what a WSDL *processor* must or must not do.
>
> There are different types of interoperability that we could
> potentially strive to obtain with the WSDL 2.0 spec, which
> I'll arbitrarily call:
>
> Type 1: Web Service & Client interop.  This type of interop
> is to ensure that the WS and client agree on the mechanics of
> their interaction -- the message formats, data types,
> transport, MEP, etc.  (Of course, they still need to use
> other means to ensure that they agree on the semantics and
> other higher-level details of the interaction -- beyond what
> WSDL covers.)
>
> Type 2: WSDL Processor interop.  This type of interop would
> ensure that different WSDL processors would have the same
> behavior when presented with a given WSD.
>
> WSDL 2.0 pursues type 1: Web Service & Client interop.  It
> does not define what a WSDL processor must or must not do
> with a given WSD.  (And rightly so, in my opinion: what a
> processor *does* with a given WSD is its own business -- not ours.)
>
>
> At 01:10 PM 11/5/2003 -0500, David Booth wrote:
>
> >Mark & Anne,
> >
> >Certainly, a WSDL document does not *fully* define client or service
> >behavior, but it does *partially* define their behavior.
> That's what
> >MEPs are all about.  When a WSDL document specifies a
> message exchange
> >pattern, that pattern partially defines the behavior of the
> interacting
> >parties -- not their internal behavior, but their externally
> observable
> >behavior, i.e., what messages they send and receive and in
> what sequence.
> >
> >The labels on the diagram were somewhat abbreviated, and omitted the
> >word "partially".  A clearer diagram is at
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Nov/0002.html
> >
> >
> >At 01:34 PM 11/4/2003 -0500, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> >
> >>+1.
> >>
> >>WSDL explicitly does not define client or service behaviour. It
> >>describes syntax of messages and protocols used to exchange
> those messages.
> >>
> >>Anne
> >>
> >>At 10:41 AM 11/4/2003, Mark Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>>Cool, thanks for tackling that at the f2f.
> >>>
> >>>But I disagree with the diagram.  As it was explained to
> me, a WSDL
> >>>2.0 document could be said to "describe the syntax" of client and
> >>>service ("schema in, schema out"), rather than "define the
> >>>behaviour", which would require defining what in/out means in
> >>>relation to any requested semantics (aka the protocol).
> >>>
> >>>WSDL 1.1 describes the protocol in that it suggests that a
> successful
> >>>response to a message means that the requested operation in the
> >>>message was successfully invoked.  WSDL 2.0 is ambiguous.
> >>>
> >>>Mark.
> >>>--
> >>>Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
> http://www.markbaker.ca
> >
> >--
> >David Booth
> >W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> >Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 13:52:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT