Issue 017: new description and sub-issues

Here is the new description and sub-issues in 017 that I promised to 
send out:

1) The spec states that the [action] property is supposed to uniquely 
identify the semantics implied by the message. Is the value of the 
[action] property required to be distinct within the scope of WSDL 
messages/operations/interface/service (?), when using WSDL to describe 
the Web service?  It seems to me that the [action] property would be 
distinct at least within the scope of an interface/operation. Is there 
any good reason not require it to be distinct? If not distinct, there 
should at least be guidance regd re-use of the [action] value to the 
creators of WSDL docs.

2) What is the relationship of the operation-name mapping requirement of 
WSDL 2.0 to the [action] property? If the [action] property is required 
to be distinct this can satisfy the operation-name mapping requirement 
of WSDL 2.0. If the [action] property is not required to be distinct, it 
would still be possible to define a feature that requires it to be 
distinct and use this feature to satisfy the operation-name mapping 
requirement.

-Anish
--

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#Interface_OperationName

Received on Monday, 3 January 2005 08:27:02 UTC