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

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

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:02:26 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


Just to nail down more details, would I be correct in assuming that your 
proposal would apply to every operation that is used in a binding?  If a 
WSDL document defines only the abstract interface (i.e., no bindings), then 
the extension used to indicate the operation name may not yet appear, so it 
would seem that the rule shouldn't kick in until the operation is used in a 
binding.  Is that your intent?

At 05:02 PM 7/7/2004 -0700, Umit Yalcinalp wrote:

>Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>>OK, I didn't (and still don't) understand the last paragraph.
>Um, which part is not clear? Can you specify?
>>But I suppose we'd also want to define how SOAPaction fulfils the 
>>abstract feature, right?
>I am not sure why you think it is necessary. We can discuss whether we 
>need it and please feel free to add an amendement to the proposal.
>>Can you write down what the whole proposal is?  I'm having trouble 
>>distinguishing where you think this proposal differs from your original 
>>OperationName proposal [1].  I don't want to repeat that bit of contention.
>I am now beginning to think that you never read the original one. ;-) This 
>is way different than the original proposal.  The original proposal 
>defined ways of implementation, what should be on the wire, what kind of 
>SOAP module should be engaged, etc. This proposal does not define any of 
>the above in the spirit of Hugo's points which I fully agree.
>This is the gut of the proposal as an executive summary:
>If rpc style or unique GED is not applicable, than WSDL document must 
>include a mandatory extension declaration to whatever the mechanism is 
>engaged, whether it be a WS-MD, WS-Addressing, etc. It is the service 
>provider's choice to choose a specific extension but it is mandatory to 
>include the extension in the WSDL document by declaring it with our 
>extension mechanisms, whether it be feature, extension, etc.  In 
>comparison to the original proposal, there is no mandate or definition of 
>WHAT the extension should be. All we should be requiring is that a 
>mandatory extension is declared so that the WSDL processors with their 
>inherent knowledge of which extensions or Features implement the abstract 
>feature can process the document. I also propose that there is a single 
>property whose value is the fragment identifier of the operation name 
>regardless of how the abstract feature is implemented by an extension, 
>etc. This allows the capability to obtain the operation name without 
>dictating the type of the extension. This allows the implementations to 
>get the value of the property and obtain the name of the operation runtime 
>in a coherent way without agreeing on the specific extension that must be 
>Note that in a different thread, this is in the same spirit of what 
>Sanjiva is proposing too, to put a marker in the WSDL [1]
>>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0082.html
>For the email challenged ;-) , here is the proposal once again [1] with my 
>last addition[2] below. Again, if you would like to propose
>additions to this, please propose them.
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0040.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0037.html
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0070.html
>OperationName Feature:
>This specification defines an OperationName as an abstract Feature
>that is required for all WSDL documents.  OperationName Feature is
>identified with the URI value:
>This Feature is assumed to be always present in the component model
>and applicable for an interface operation component (See Section
> Composition Model). Therefore, it is not required to be
>declared in a WSDL document, but MUST always be supported.
>[Note: For sake of completeness, I propose that we identify
>this feature with a URI although it will not exhibit itself in a WSDL
>The OperationName Feature requires the operation name to be
>identifiable in a message exchange and thus be conveyed between the
>requestor agent and the provider agent. Since there may be multiple
>mechanisms that may implement this abstract Feature, such as other
>features, binding mechanisms (i.e.  a SOAP module) or existing
>extensibility mechanisms this specification does not mandate a
>specific implementation. However, one the following conditions must be
>met to satisfy the OperationName feature:
>(1) an interface operation component must have a {style} property that
>has the URI value http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl/style/rpc.
>(2) The messages of all interface operation components in a particular
>direction for a specific interface component must be unique, i.e. they
>must have distinct GEDs.
>(3) WSDL document MUST contain a mandatory extension (see Section 8.3
>Processor Conformance for the definition of a mandatory extension)
>that satisfy and implement the OperationName feature. The mandatory
>extension MUST be in use in a scope that contains interface operation
>component (see Section Composition Model)
>[Note: I believe that it is also possible to restrict the previous
>definition to binding and binding operation scopes only. I can go
>either way]
>This feature also defines an abstract property that holds the URI of
>the name of the operation. The URI of the property is 
>Since there are different ways to implement the abstract OperationName
>feature as stated above, this specification requires a unique means of
>identifying the operation name via the Property value. The value MUST
>be the fragment identifier that signifies the specific operation
>engaged and MUST be made available in an interaction. (See Section C.2
>Fragment Identifiers)

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 22:02:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:49 UTC