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

Re: Two logical WSDL documents describing the same service

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:06:39 -0500
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050128180639.2c159ad3.alewis@tibco.com>

Most opinions within the working group are well-known, aren't they?

I note that this is the fourth call for removal of this constraint,
apart from those within the working group who opposed it at its
inception.

TIBCO's position on this issue has weakened since then; we're aware of
customers who believe that some means of stitching disparate interfaces
together is a requirement, and we find the simplicity of the model that
results from the constraint attractive (grudgingly, but still).

Personally, I think that we ought to revive the ServiceGroup element
proposal, at the top level, for this.

<wsdl:serviceGroup name="xsd:string">
    <wsdl:group relationship="xsd:anyURI"> [one or more]
        <wsdl:service ref="xsd:qname" /> [two or more]
    </wsdl:group>
</wsdl:serviceGroup>

It is not an error for a service to participate in more than one
relationship.  Optionally, one might permit a group reference element
inside group (group itself would then have a required name attribute,
presumably).

This would satisfy the criticisms most often leveled against service as
it stands, and would still retain the attractive simplicity of single
interface per service.  Extension specifications could then define the
URIs used by the mechanism (for instance, a management interface for a
service, or a preferences interface, or whatever).

Amy!
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:31:04 -0500
David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> (Thanks Paul, you beat me to it!)
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Though not official, draft minutes of last week's F2F are at:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-desc-minutes.html#item02
> 
> Also, if you have an opinion about what you think the Working Group
> should do, please speak up!
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 12:04, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> > Richard
> > 
> > this issue has been the subject of much debate during the 
> > life of the WG, and was discussed during last week's F2F:
> > 
> > [[
> > Single interface per service issues:
> >     - Issue LC73: WSDL Last Call issue [2]
> >     - Issue LC75n: WSDL 2.0 Last Call Comments [3]
> >     - Issue LC89k: Comments [4]
> >     - Roberto's proposal [5]
> >       Majority in favour of reopening?
> > 
> >  [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC73
> >  [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75n
> >  [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC89k
> >  [5]
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0094.html
> > ]]
> > 
> > I suggest you observe the outcome of this discussion (the minutes
> > have yet to be published) and if you have new information, consider 
> > raising a separate Last Call comment (though officially the deadline
> > 
> > has expired).
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Hopkins [mailto:rph@nesc.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 28 January 2005 13:32
> > To: dbooth@w3.org
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; alewis@tibco.com;
> > Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com; Downey,PS,Paul,XAGA C
> > Subject: RE: Two logical WSDL documents describing the same service
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I picked up on this thread from the document WSDL 2.0 Primer, 21 Dec
> > 2004.
> > 
> > I was particularly coming from looking at WSRF proposal.
> > 
> > One would expect a service (in a loose sense) to manage more than
> > one resource-type.
> > E.g a file repository managing a file resource-type and a directory
> > resource-type.
> > But a resource type is characterised by a resource-property document
> > An interface/port-type can identify a resource-property document,
> > but only one
> > A service can have only one interface, and thus can manage only
> > mange one-resource type.
> > Unless our repository service end-point has two WSDLs, defining a
> > service for files and a service for directories.
> > 
> > Any comments on this?
> > 
> > Richard  
> > 
> > ____________________________________________
> > Richard    Hopkins
> > Trainer    National e-Science Centre (Edinburgh)
> >            13-15 South College Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AA 
> > Email:     rph@nesc.ac.uk 
> > Tel:       +44 (0)131 651 4290
> > Fax:       +44 (0)131 650 9819
> > Mobile:    0788 7721 964
> > Home Tel:  +44 (0)131 555 3065
> > ____________________________________________
> > -------------------
> >  
> -- 
> 
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Friday, 28 January 2005 23:07:05 GMT

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