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

LC124

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 18:33:09 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7CFE39C9.145A7D85-ON85257036.007AEFC9-85257036.007BE19E@ca.ibm.com>
I've been discussing LC124 with my colleagues and I thought I'd post an 
update in case we discuss this tomorrow.

1. In general, we agree the versioning is important, and we'd like the 
problem addressed.
2. We are concerned that this is really an XML Schema problem and that 
WSDL is probably not the right place to address it. There is work going on 
now in the Schema WG. There are several solutions being proposed and it 
would be premature for WSDL to adopt the validate-twice solution (although 
that is a strong contender). As a cautionary tale, the creative use of 
Schema with SOAP Encoding was cited. The schema didn't really describe the 
message. We don't want a repeat in WSDL 2.0. We are concerned about 
locking in a solution that may not agree with the direction of Schema.
3. The boolean nature of ignoreUnknowns is not very useful. In many 
scenarios, it is important to know if the unknown content is preserved 
(e.g. passed on) or even processed.
4. There is no normative document that describes the proposed processing 
algorithm. Who will write that? (pointing to conference papers is not 
adequate). The WSDL spec should only cite other specs for Core features.

I need more time to establish a company position since this is vacation 
season. I'll try to move this issue forward though.


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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:33:19 GMT

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