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

Re: Meaning of a WSDL document

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:57:30 -0500
To: Anne Thomas Manes <atmanes@gmail.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1105646249.12756.184.camel@nc6000.w3.org>

Anne,

Good point.  A WSDL 2.0 document certainly can describe only a service
type (a/k/a interface).

Perhaps it would be better to break this into two parts -- one for
service descriptions and one for interface descriptions.

Here is a revised proposal.

-------------
In completion of my action item (2004-11-18: DBooth to propose text to
clarify that a service must implement everything in its description),
here is proposed text to add to Part 1.  
[[
The Meaning of a Service Description

A WSDL 2.0 service description indicates how potential clients are
intended to interact with the described service.  It represents an
assertion that the described service fully implements and conforms to
what the WSDL document describes.  For example, as further
explained in section 6.1.1, if the WSDL document specifies a particular
optional extension, the functionality implied by that extension is only
optional to the client.  It MUST be supported by the Web service. 

A WSDL 2.0 interface describes potential interaction with a service --
not required interaction.  The declaration of an operation in a WSDL
interface is not an assertion that the interaction described by the
operation must occur.  Rather it is an assertion that if such an
interaction is (somehow) initiated, then the declared operation
describes how that interaction is intended to occur.
]]


On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 15:23, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: 
> So true! 
> 
> For example, I've always been under the assumption that a WSDL
> document may define a service *type* and not always a service
> *implementation*. Or did this capability go away in WSDL 2.0?
> 
> I agree with the requirement that a service described by a WSDL
> document containing a <wsdl:service> definition must implement
> everything in the description, but the text below kinda precludes the
> concept of abstract definitions.
> 
> Anne


-- 

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:57:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:34 GMT