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

Re: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:37:48 +0600
Message-ID: <025c01c41077$7c61e6c0$02c8a8c0@watson.ibm.com>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>

There is already a non-normative, but rather empty, appendix
on this topic. I intend to work on it sometime in the future .. I agree
that indicating how to go from WSDL 1.1 to 2.0 is crucial.

Furthermore, I'd like to write a separate document (to be published
as a note if the WG wishes to or I can publish it on IBM developerWorks
say) which defines a WSDL 2.0 compatible profile of WSDL 1.1. I'm
certain that can be written as a subset of the BP 1.0 profile of WSDL 1.1.
If that can be achieved then we should be encouraging people to stay
within that profile so that moving up to WSDL 2.0 becomes mechanical.
(I intend to write an XSLT transformation for that profile; interested
parties
can easily extend that profile for greater WSDL 1.1 coverage.)

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
To: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:40 AM
Subject: RE: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping


> Hmm ..thanks!
>
> I guess it won't be a good fit going WSDL 2.0 to 1.1, but then documenting
what's
> different is going to be very useful info.
>
> Our biggest concern is in migrating our existing services, WSDL 1.1 to 2.0
and i'm
> prepared to accept that might not be a good fit either - you mention SOAP
encoding
> and i immediately thought of operator overloading and i guess there are
going to be
> a metric tonne of other issues.
>
> I don't want to bog the WG with a load more to think about, but given this
is something
> i'm sure i'm not alone in having to think about, I'd ideally like the
backing and support
> of this WG.
>
> This might provide a good validation for our spec as well as providing a
good source
> of lots of existing real-world test cases!
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Mon 22/03/2004 18:51
> To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> There are things in WSDL 2.0 that cannot be expressed in WSDL 1.1, e.g.
interface inheritance. However, it is probably feasible to imbed WSDL 1.1
into WSDL 2.0, although you may have to invent some extensions (e.g. for
SOAP encoding).
>
> Arthur Ryman,
> Rational Desktop Tools Development
>
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063
> intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
>
>
>
> <paul.downey@bt.com>
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
> 03/22/2004 11:23 AM
>
> To
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> cc
> Subject
> WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> one of the more difficult questions i'm being asked at the moment
> is how we will migrate from our WSDL 1.1 documents into WSDL 2.0
> when it arrives.
>
> This task would be vastly simplified if there was a standard mapping
> between the two languages, with an indication of which WSDL 1.1 features
> cannot be expressed in WSDL 1.1 and vice-versa.
>
> Given we now have a nice component model for WSDL 2.0, is it feasible
> to provided WSDL 1.1 serialisation and deserialisation for WSDL 2.0 ?
> If so, could this be written up as a W3C note under this WG ?
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul Sumner Downey
> Web Services Integration
> BT Exact
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 20:38:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT