W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2005

RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:43:00 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA8001CA6D82@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, <tom@coastin.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Hi Glen,

I think what you are suggesting is orthogonal to my example. How the
value of wsa:To is inferred or communicated or how it is associated with
a service within any metadata document shouldn't really be of concern at
the SOAP message-addressing level. WSDL is at a higher level than
WS-Addressing and I think that it should be WSDL responsible for
considering the existence of WS-Addressing rather than the other way
around (please note that I am not suggesting that there should be no
hooks for metadata in the endpoint references).

I personally wouldn't have the restriction that the
/description/service/endpoint/@address must be a "network address" (from
the WSDL 2.0 spec) and would have allowed logical destinations to be
included in there. As for the name of the service element, I personally
wouldn't like to see it reflected down at the SOAP level. It should only
be used for the purposes of WSDL. What if another service description
language was introduced that didn't have the same concepts as WSDL and,
hence, no concept of service name? 

Best regards,
Savas Parastatidis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 2:01 PM
> To: Savas Parastatidis; tom@coastin.com; Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
> Interesting discussion, folks.
> A question - if the wsa:To URI represents an "abstract identifier"
> to represent the service in question, why aren't we just using the
> service QName for the exact same purpose?  Is there a difference aside
> from the URI/QName distinction?  Doesn't it seem odd that the same
> concept is represented differently in two different core specs?
> Thanks,
> --Glen
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 14:43:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:23 UTC