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

Issue LC29b

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:14:14 -0500
Message-ID: <80A43FC052CE3949A327527DCD5D6B27A62110@MAIL01.bedford.progress.com>
To: <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


Hi Marc!

You had asked about a way to make the relationship between SOAP modules
and abstract features in WSDL more explicit: 

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29b

Since "understanding" a SOAP module identifier involves having read the
specification for that module (in an analagous way to "understanding"
SOAP headers), you will by definition KNOW which (if any) abstract
features that module implements.  The only use for an explicit markup
telling the reader which features are satisfied by a particular module
might be for some kind of consistency checking, but this would only
matter for required modules/features (unrecognized optional ones can be
ignored), and any realistic use of the WSDL component model will require
understanding of those anyway in order to do anything.  Also, having
explicit markup for this kind of thing would provide a potential for
misrepresentation (the WSDL could be incorrect about which features were
supported by a given module, instead of relying on the spec as the final
arbiter).

Therefore, the group doesn't believe any action needs to be taken in
order to resolve this issue, and this email should do the trick.  Please
let us know if you have any further commentary, or think that there's
more we need to do (is there particular text which might be clarified,
etc).

Thanks, and sorry for the delay getting back to you on this!
--Glen
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 13:14:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT