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

RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:11:37 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B63380194D95F@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
I want the following, in priority order.
 
1) WSDL allows me to describe any message I want.
2) WSDL allow all the richness that SOAP allows
3) WSDL make binding message to SOAP easy to write.
4) WSDL make bindings messages to non-SOAP easy to write.
 
Gudge


________________________________

	From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
	Sent: 24 March 2004 14:03
	To: Martin Gudgin
	Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Tom Jordahl; WS Description List;
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	
	

	Gudge, 
	
	I think that's the wrong conclusion. The message is abstract at
the interface definition level. So if someone wanted to describe SOAP
messages that had multiple elements then they could define a suitable
binding. Isn't this analogous to the HTTP binding and URL encoding of
parameters? Clearly there is no element there. The HTTP binding pulls
apart the content of the element and stuffs it into a URL. 
	
	So the real question is: Do we want WSDL to describe messages so
that SOAP bindings are simple to describe, or do we want to preserve the
concept of abstract messages (based on a single element) and force the
heavy lifting to be done in the bindings? 
	
	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/ 
	
	
	
"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

03/23/2004 06:53 PM 

To
"Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Tom Jordahl"
<tomj@macromedia.com> 
cc
"WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> 
Subject
RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

	




	
	Jacek,
	
	It seems odd ( to me at least ) that WSDL not allow me to
describe
	messages that are clearly OK per the SOAP spec.
	
	Gudge
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
	Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
	Sent: 23 March 2004 06:20
	To: Tom Jordahl
	Cc: 'WS Description List'
	Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	
	
	Tom, I originally meant the issue 146 as really allowing
anything in the
	message, but I will have no problem with constraining that to
"any
	single element", it suits the usecase I have in mind here - a
	content-based router endpoint that receives any message.
	
	This way the spec will be clearer and more consistent and the
	restriction to a single element in SOAP Body doesn't seem too
bad; noone
	knows how to handle multiple elements there anyway. 8-)
	
	                  Jacek Kopecky
	
	                  Systinet Corporation
	                  http://www.systinet.com/
	
	
	
	
	On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 23:07, Tom Jordahl wrote:
	> I actually never believed we were discussing (4), I had always
assumed
	(3).
	> I am also against the idea that you can get away with sticking
	*anything* in
	> to the message.  Now I understand why Umit is so worked up.
:-)
	> 
	> I propose we clarify the meaning of "#any" to be explicit that
we are
	> specifying "any element", not "any stuff you want".
	> 
	> 
	> --
	> Tom Jordahl
	> Macromedia Server Development
	> 
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Roberto Chinnici [mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM] 
	> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:36 PM
	> To: Arthur Ryman
	> Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Martin Gudgin; Tom Jordahl; WS
Description
	List;
	> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	> Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> 
	> I find the current syntax nice and readble in three of the
four cases:
	> 
	>    1)  element="myns:Foo"
	>    2)  element="#none"
	>    3)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "any element")
	> 
	> It's the fourth case, i.e.
	>    4)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "anything, any kind
of
	content")
	> that is problematic.
	> 
	> I'm actually having second thoughts on conflating (3) and (4).
	> 
	> I think that Umit has a point when she says that by adopting
(4) we've
	> moved away from an element-based content model representation.
	> 
	> Moreover, given that some bindings might have restrictions on
the
	> allowable payloads for a message, it seems important to
distinguish
	> between (3) and (4). Otherwise an application written to the
abstract
	> layer of WSDL will feel authorized, upon encountering a
message
	> definition which specified element="#any", to pass arbitrary
content
	> around, including content of a kind that will be
systematically
	rejected
	> by the binding in use. Then we'd fall back again in the trap
of
	writing
	> applications to a specific binding rather than to the abstract
	interface.
	> 
	> Roberto
	> 
	> 
	> Arthur Ryman wrote:
	> > 
	> > Sanjiva,
	> > 
	> > The attribute @element formerly refered to the QName of an
element 
	> > (GED). However, now it may not refer to an element. In fact,
the
	message 
	> > content might be a simple type, or anything else, including
nothing.
	So 
	> > it is a minor misnomer to call the attribute @element.
However, most
	of 
	> > the time it will refer to an element. Logically, the
attribute
	describes 
	> > the message content, which is often, but not always, an
element.
	> > 
	> > 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/
	> > 
	> > 
	> > *"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>*
	> > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	> > 
	> > 03/16/2004 10:02 PM
	> > 
	> >                  
	> > To
	> >                  "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>,
"Tom Jordahl" 
	> > <tomj@macromedia.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
	> > cc
	> >                  "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
	> > Subject
	> >                  Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and
150
	> > 
	> > 
	> >                  
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > I'm confused .. I thought we're talking about special values
to
	> > assign to the operation/(input|output)/@element attribute to
	> > indicate any content (#any) or no content (#empty).
	> > 
	> > What does this have to do with changing the name of the
attribute?
	> > 
	> > Sanjiva.
	> > 
	> > ----- Original Message -----
	> > From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
	> > To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>; "Arthur Ryman"
	<ryman@ca.ibm.com>
	> > Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
	> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:43 AM
	> > Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> > 
	> > 
	> > Have you implemented it already? ;-)
	> > 
	> > Gudge
	> > 
	> > P.S. I've always thought it mildly amusing to have an
attribute
	whose
	> > name is element ( or vice versa ) ;-)
	> > 
	> > 
	> > ________________________________
	> > 
	> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
	> > Sent: 16 March 2004 11:01
	> > To: 'Arthur Ryman'
	> > Cc: 'WS Description List'
	> > Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > We just changed the name of this attribute to "element".
	> > 
	> > -1 to changing it AGAIN.
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > --
	> > Tom Jordahl
	> > Macromedia Server Development
	> > 
	> > -----Original Message-----
	> > From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
	> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:05 PM
	> > To: Tom Jordahl
	> > Cc: 'Jonathan Marsh'; 'WS Description List';
	> > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	> > Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > Correction to my note:
	> > 
	> > s/elementReference/element/
	> > 
	> > Same comment applies. It's not an element anymore.
	> > 
	> > 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/
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
	> > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	> > 
	> > 03/16/2004 09:30 AM
	> > 
	> > To
	> > 
	> > "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'WS Description
List'"
	> > <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
	> > 
	> > cc
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > Subject
	> > 
	> > RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> >  
	> > Jonathan,
	> >  
	> > You meant to say "elementReference is the name of a type so
it
	> > would NOT appear in the syntax"
	> >  
	> > Right?
	> >  
	> > 
	> > --
	> > Tom Jordahl
	> > Macromedia Server Development
	> > -----Original Message-----
	> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Marsh
	> > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:48 PM
	> > To: WS Description List
	> > Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> >  
	> > elementReference is the name of a type so it would appear in
the
	> > syntax.  I like messageBody better too.  Or I suppose we
could just
	get
	> > rid of the reference altogether, right?
	> >  
	> > <xs:attribute name="element" >
	> >       <xs:simpleType>
	> >               <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
	> >                       <xs:simpleType>
	> >                               <xs:restriction
base="xs:token">
	> >                                       <xs:enumeration
	> > value="#any" />
	> >                                       <xs:enumeration
	> > value="#empty" />
	> >                               </xs:restriction>
	> >                       </xs:simpleType>
	> >               </xs:union>
	> >       </xs:simpleType>
	> > </xs:attribute>
	> >  
	> >  
	> >  
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > ________________________________
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
	> > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:58 PM
	> > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
	> > Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Jonathan Marsh; WS Description List;
	> > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	> > Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> >  
	> > 
	> > Sanjiva,
	> > 
	> > The XML Schema looks fine except for a couple of minor
errors.
	> > Here's a corrected version:
	> > 
	> >       <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference"
/>
	> > 
	> >       <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
	> >               <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
	> >                       <xs:simpleType>
	> >                               <xs:restriction
base="xs:token">
	> >                                       <xs:enumeration
	> > value="#any" />
	> >                                       <xs:enumeration
	> > value="#empty" />
	> >                               </xs:restriction>
	> >                       </xs:simpleType>
	> >               </xs:union>
	> >       </xs:simpleType>
	> > 
	> > 
	> > However, I dislike the name of the attribute,
elementReference,
	> > since the whole point of introducing it was to allow the
case where
	> > there is no element reference. How about @messageBody or
	@bodyContent
	> > instead?
	> > 
	> > 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/
	> > 
	> > "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
	> > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	> > 
	> > 03/11/2004 10:50 PM
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > To
	> > 
	> > "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Jonathan
Marsh"
	> > <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
	> > 
	> > cc
	> > 
	> > "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
	> > 
	> > Subject
	> > 
	> > Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> > 
	> > 
	> >  
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> >  
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > 
	> > Looks good to me too .. however I'll let Arthur indicate an
IBM
	> > position as I can barely spell schiema let alone make value
	> > judgements about the goodness of using unions.
	> > 
	> > Sanjiva.
	> > 
	> > ----- Original Message -----
	> > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
	> > To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
	> > Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
	> > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:58 PM
	> > Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	> > 
	> > 
	> >  >
	> >  > I applaud the elegance of this proposal. 8-)
	> >  > I hope it will be accepted.
	> >  >
	> >  > Jacek
	> >  >
	> >  > On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 18:55, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
	> >  > > Issues 146 [.1] and 150 [.2] were inadvertently left
off the
	> > FTF agenda.
	> >  > > Sorry my bad.  Here's a simple proposal for addressing
these
	> > issues,
	> >  > > assuming we find merit in adding this functionality.
	> >  > >
	> >  > > Issue 146 Should WSDL be able to describe an operation
with
	> > *anything*
	> >  > > in the message? [.1]
	> >  > >
	> >  > > Issue 150 Indicating empty bodies [.2]
	> >  > >
	> >  > > When using XML SchemaS, The element attribute points to
a
	> > QName of a
	> >  > > GED, preventing either empty bodies, or unconstrained
	> > content.  Special
	> >  > > values of the element attribute could indicate these
	> > conditions.
	> >  > >
	> >  > > Status quo:
	> >  > >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="xs:QName"
	> > use="optional" />
	> >  > >
	> >  > > Proposal:
	> >  > >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference"
	> > use="optional" />
	> >  > >
	> >  > >   <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
	> >  > >     <xs:union>
	> >  > >       <xs:simpleType memberTypes="xs:QName">
	> >  > >         <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
	> >  > >           <xs:enumeration value="#any"/>
	> >  > >           <xs:enumeration value="#empty"/>
	> >  > >         </xs:restriction>
	> >  > >       </xs:simpleType>
	> >  > >     </xs:union>
	> >  > >   </xs:simpleType>
	> >  > >
	> >  > > (I hope I have got that syntax right.  Should be enough
to
	> > spark
	> >  > > discussion anyway...)
	> >  > >
	> >  > > [.1]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x146
	> >  > > [.2]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x150
	> >  > >
	> 
	
	
	
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 15:36:07 GMT

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