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: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:39:37 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040708103356.04615c00@localhost>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>,
Cc: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

At 02:30 PM 7/7/2004 -0700, Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote:

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

Can you give an example?

>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 current wording of R114 is indeed ambiguous ("R114: The description 
language MUST allow unambiguously mapping any on-the-wire Message to an 
Operation.").  It isn't clear whether the "MUST allow" verb applies to the 
_mapping_ or the _writer_of_a_WSDL_document_, i.e., whether it MUST allow 
any message to be mapped to an operation (this would be the stronger 
interpretation), or whether it MUST allow a WSDL document to be written 
such that any message can be mapped to an operation (this would be the 
weaker interpretation).  Also, the wording of this requirement somehow 
changed (weakened) after the WG agreed to it on 4 April 2002, though I 
can't find anything in the minutes to justify the change.  (Here is the 
chronology that I found:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jul/0021.html )

However, I think the precise wording of R114 is somewhat irrelevant.  The 
real question is what does the WG think we need.

Jeffrey, are you suggesting that you think Scenario X (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0300.html )
is an acceptable situation and is not a interoperability problem that we 
need to solve?

>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.

Again, that depends on your interpretation of R114.  Unique GEDs also 
provide a way to uniquely map.  Personally, I think the weak interpretation 
of R114 would render R114 somewhat pointless, because the author of a WSD 
can always simply write the WSD to use unique GEDs -- nothing special is 
needed in the WSDL 2.0 spec to facilitate this.


-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 12:39:40 GMT

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