RE: help with incorporating operation name v3 proposal (issue 168)

Curious - what's not testable about the wording below?

I would think the tests would be something like:

- 1 -
Define a WSDL with unique GEDs, processor does fine

- 2 -
Define a WSDL with non-unique GEDs and no extensions, processor barfs

- 3 -
Define an feature "http://www.w3.org/wsdl/testFeature" which "satisfies
the requirement" (in other words this feature simply exists for this
test).

Define a WSDL with non-unique GEDs which uses the above feature in the
<interface>, processor does fine.

... etc.

--G 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 5:41 PM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: help with incorporating operation name v3 
> proposal (issue 168)
> 
> 
> Would it be possible to have wording that is testable as well?
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 1:10 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: help with incorporating operation name v3 proposal 
> (issue 168)
> 
> 
> I'm trying incorporate the wording that we came up with 
> during the May 15th telecon:
> 
> [[
> If GEDs are NOT unique, then the WSD MUST somehow indicate, 
> as a mandatory extension, what mechanism is required to 
> determine the interface operation component.
> ]]
> 
> 
> I'm unclear where to incorporate this.
> 
> It seems to belong in the description of Interface Operation 
> components, but that's carefully written in terms independent 
> of XSD and XML type system lingo. This particular thing is 
> written for XML type systems .. do we want to fix that or put 
> this in as-is (with an additional clause saying "if the 
> message reference components are defined using an XML type 
> system AND if the GEDs are ...")?
> 
> Please advice. Cut-n-pasteable words would be even more welcome.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 18:17:03 UTC