W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 17:36:30 -0400
To: "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF18C6FE73.31DABFB5-ON8525717E.007607DE-8525717E.0076BA0F@ca.ibm.com>
Ram,

FYI, we used Z notation to capture the semantics in the spec. The Z is 
available in a non-normative version of the spec [1]

I don't think schematron work be expressive enough since a WSDL document 
is a single XML infoset, but many of the rules can only be expressed in 
terms of the component model which is built up from one or more WSDL 
documents and schemas.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060327/wsdl20-z.html

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
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



"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> 
05/30/2006 05:20 PM

To
"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
cc
"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, 
www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component






Hi Gurus,
A good way to capture the valid semantics [and cross field validations] of 
WSDL components would be to define inline schematrons witin the 
annotations for the WSDL Schema, if time permits. 
http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl/wsdl20.xsd
Would that be possible, or is planned in the near future ?
Or maybe I can volunteer for this :-)
 
rgds,
Ram
 
On 5/30/06, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com> wrote: 
FTR, I recorded these questions as CR047, CR048, and CR049.
 
I also don't see anything conceptually broken with a service that points 
to an interface which, even after inheritance, doesn't contain any 
operations.  Not terribly useful, but there are many similarly useless 
ways to use WSDL. 
 
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html?view=normal#CR047
 
 

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of Ramkumar Menon
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 10:21 PM
To: Rogers, Tony
Cc: Arthur Ryman; www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org

Subject: Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component
 
Thanks Tony, Arthur. That clarifies things a lot.
regards,
Ram

 
On 5/29/06, Rogers, Tony < Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote: 
As far as the bindings referenced by endpoints, no, these need not refer 
to interfaces. If you read about "reusable" bindings in the Primer you'll 
see that there's a good case for using bindings that do not refer to 
interfaces - that's what Arthur was referring to by "generic" bindings. 
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com 
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C
 

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Ramkumar Menon
Sent: Tue 30-May-06 13:41
To: Arthur Ryman
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component

 
Hi Arthur,
 
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Maybe I was not clear in my question (1) .
I was explicitly referring to the "interface" attribute on the <service> 
nodes. Woudnt the interfaces that are referred to as attributes on the 
<service> nodes need to have atleast one operation within them, either 
declared / inherited ? Would it make sense to explicitly state this in the 
spec ? 
Similarly, for the second question, I was referring to those bindings that 
are referred to from within the <endpoint> node as an attribute - wdnt 
these referred bindings need to be referring to an interface mandatorily ? 
Again, if it makes sense, would it better if we explicitly state ithis in 
the spec ? 
 
I would also appreciate your thoughts on point (3).
 
Thanks again!
 
rgds,
Ram

 
On 5/29/06, Arthur Ryman < ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote: 

Ram, 

It might be useful to have an interface that just defined faults, so -1 to 
requiring one or more operations. 

An endpoint refers to a single binding. If the binding refers to an 
interface, it must be the same as the service's interface. Note that 
generic "interfaceless" bindings are possible. 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ 
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 


"Ramkumar Menon" < ramkumar.menon@gmail.com > 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
05/23/2006 02:36 PM 


To
www-ws-desc@w3.org 
cc
 
Subject
"interface" attribute info item on service component
 


 
 

 




Three fundamental questions.

Would it be useful to add a clause for the <service> component stating
The "interface" attribute information item should point to an 
interface that has non zero number of "operation" element information
items within it.
If not, we cd as well have service components that could possible be
empty, and allow them to extend other service components, reflecting 
the same semantics we have defined for interface inheritance -
considering that one service component is related to exactly one
interface. 

Am I right if I state that if all "binding" attribute info items that 
had been defined on the endpoint node should have been associated with 
an  "interface" attribute information item? What does it mean to be
otherwise ?

Moreover, if the service component has an interface attribute info 
item that extends from two other interfaces, can the endpoint defined
within it refer to bindings that were defined for the parent
interfaces ? If yes/no, should this be reflected in the core language
spec ? 

rgds,
Ram
-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right! 
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor 




-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor 



-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor 



-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor 
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 21:36:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:40 GMT