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

RE: What WSDL defines - the diagram!

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 03:57:15 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031107031640.04d89d70@localhost>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <paul.downey@bt.com>

No, whether or not there are duplicate definitions is a property of the 
WSDL document -- not a question of what a WSDL processor does with it.  The 
*document* is erroneous (or non-conformant) if it contains duplicate 
definitions.

WSDL processors might do many things.  We cannot make assumptions about 
what they may wish to do, nor should we try to restrict what they might 
do.  That's their business, not ours.  Our business is to define: (a) what 
constitutes a conformant WSDL document; and (b) what that document means.

At 10:38 AM 11/6/2003 -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>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
> >
> >

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 04:16:35 GMT

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