W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:30:04 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB807507419@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

WSDL 2.0 should not require identifying the operation name because doing
so will unnecessarily limit the applicability of WSDL 2.0.

R114 mandates that the WSD language define a way to uniquely map, but it
does not mandate that each WSDL document must uniquely map.

The RPC style (http://www.w3.org/2004/03/wsdl/style/rpc) defines a way
to uniquely map and therefore satisfies R114. Nothing else is needed.

--Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Umit Yalcinalp
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:14 PM
> To: WS Description List
> Subject: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Below please find my action item completed. (I did not want to receive
> friendly reminders from Jonathan every day during 4th of July ;-)).
> 
> Here is my position on the thread started with David [1]. The
questions
> I was trying to answer and my position wrt those are:
> 
> (1) should WSDL require identifying the operation name? (yes)
> (2) should WSDL enable identifying the specific mechanism that makes
the
> operation name known? (yes)
> (3) should WSDL provide a way to operation name regardless of the
> mechanism employed? (yes)
> (4) should WSDL define the mechanism of implementation? (no)
> 
> This proposal addresses 1, 2 and 3 as an addition to Part 1. My
earlier
> proposals addressed all
> of the above (see [2] and [3]) in the past and there are similar
> elements in my current proposal, but given that there are different
ways
> to do (4) and we will never agree on it, at least I am hoping that we
> agree that we should at least be able to agree to identify them in a
> WSDL document.
> In essence, the proposal below is in the spirit of Hugo's email [4],
but
> also requires that all extensibility mechanisms to be declared in
WSDL.
> 
> If there are "friendly"  amendements or spec-eze improvements, please
> send them. I realize that there may be additional rules one may be
able
> to formulate for satisfying the OperationName feature other than those
> stated, but this will not break the intention of the proposal, namely
> WSDL is the contract and all dependencies must be declared.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0300.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0082.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0152.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0004.html
> 
> 
> --
> Umit Yalcinalp
> Consulting Member of Technical Staff
> ORACLE
> Phone: +1 650 607 6154
> Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 17:30:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT