W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Data Access WG questions about WSDL

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:33:12 -0400
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050816133312.GJ2157@monkeyfist.com>

On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 03:01:45PM +0200, Hugo Haas wrote:
> 
> I don't see why it would not work. However, what you are going to end
> up with is a POST of an empty message to a IRI built based on the
> instance data, and I don't think that it's the solution you were
> after.

Ah, yes, you'd think after all these years, I'd grok how POST works. :>

> Didn't you want to use multipart/form-data is an input serialization
> instead? And in which case, yes, you can do it.

Yep, I somehow convinced myself that multipart/form-data wouldn't work. Oh,
well, thanks.

> The value of whttp:outputSerialization is "a IANA media type
> token"[1], which interestingly doesn't have a reference to define it
> clearly, but I don't think that it allows something like
> "application/*", or "application/sparql-results+xml
> application/rdf+xml", or even "application/sparql-results+xml,
> application/rdf+xml".

Yes, that's my reading of the specs, too. Precisely what we want is to be
able to list multiple IMTs as possible output serialization types. What I
really want from WSDL 2 is to be able to describe *my* service, not to have
to change my service to fit WSDL 2 (especially in cases like this, where
there doesn't seem to be anything *wrong* with multiple serialization types
from a single operation).

> So WSDL doesn't allow you to do what you want to.

Right. Bad WSDL! :>

> Talking to Eric Prud'hommeaux about this, we actually wondered what
> would happen if one was declaring two binding operations with
> identical input parameters but different output ones:

Eek. That's ugly. I'll pass on that. :>

> But it's ugly in this case.

Agreed. Hugely complicating and complex. And implicit.

> It actually may be possible to change the definition of the
> serialization properties to allow for a list of media types instead of
> one particular media type.

Yes, I suspect I will send LC comments to this effect.

> Maybe the fault serialization should be a property of the Binding
> Fault and Binding Fault Reference components, rather than of the
> Binding Operation, which would solve your problem.

That makes sense; does it solve my problem because, as a property of Binding
Fault, it would be optional? The other way to solve it is as per
outputSerialization above, namely, to allow a list of multiple IMT values.
But we'd prefer it to be optional, in which case we just wouldn't specify
it. A partial, more accurate description is better than a more complete, but
less accurate one. IMO, of course. :>

> As WSDL 2.0 is in LC until 19 September, I encourage you to send all
> the feedback you may have as a result of this discussion to
> public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org.

Thanks, Hugo. And, yes, stay tuned, as I suspect some LC comments will be
forthcoming.

Best,
Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 13:33:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT