Re: Review of WSDL core for WSA

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>     * Section 3.3 has the intriguing title "Describing Messages that
>       Refer to Services and Endpoints." which seems at least
>       statistically similar to the EPR section of the WSA core, and it
>       even talks about the {address} property of endpoints.  However,
>       on closer inspection this is just about tagging schema
>       components and the like with the names of interfaces and
>       bindings that reference them.  I don't believe this affects us,
>       and I don't recall it coming up in our discussions.
>
> This is the section I highlighted in my mail requesting review [1]. 
> Specifically, does the WS-A WG have any concerns about WSDL 2.0
> recommending the use of these annotations on types derived from
> wsa:EndpointReference?
>
>                                                                                                      
>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Aug/0070.html
>
I have a better answer to this.  Unfortunately, my mailer crashed
instead of sending it off (honest!), so I'll probably just describe it
on the call.

>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *David Hull
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:08 PM
> *To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> *Subject:* Review of WSDL core for WSA
>
>  
>
> I've gone through the WSDL core LC2 draft from top to bottom a few
> times now, and also had a fresh look at our WSDL binding.  While I do
> have several comments and questions about the core on my own behalf,
> which I'll be writing up as time permits, I don't believe there's too
> much to say from a WSA perspective.
>
> As far as I can tell, WSA and WSDL intersect mainly in the area of
> MEPs.  EPRs can carry WSDL descriptions as metadata, but they can
> carry anything at all as metadata, so it's hard to see what
> restrictions this would entail.  MEPs, on the other hand, are dealt
> with mainly as adjuncts, not in the core.  As long as the WSDL can
> support MEPs beyond the core set, and I believe it does so by design,
> we should be OK there.
>
> Long story short, only two areas stood out on first reading:
>
>     * Section 3.3 has the intriguing title "Describing Messages that
>       Refer to Services and Endpoints." which seems at least
>       statistically similar to the EPR section of the WSA core, and it
>       even talks about the {address} property of endpoints.  However,
>       on closer inspection this is just about tagging schema
>       components and the like with the names of interfaces and
>       bindings that reference them.  I don't believe this affects us,
>       and I don't recall it coming up in our discussions.
>     * Section 6.1.1, "Mandatory extensions" is about the wsdl:required
>       attribute.  This, of course, has been the subject of quite a bit
>       of discussion concerning how to use this attribute in
>       conjunction with wsa:UsingAddressing.  Reading through this gave
>       me a bit more insight into that discussion, but as far as
>       comments to WSDL, I don't really see any.  From our point of
>       view, wsdl:required is a "fact on the ground," and unless we
>       feel that wsa:UsingAddressing can't be made to work without
>       changes to it, I don't think we have anything  to add.  I
>       believe our woes have been more along the lines of trying to
>       understand which of several possible readings of wsdl:required
>       to standardize on, and that's our problem, not WSDL's.  WSDL
>       isn't preventing us from defining the semantics we need.
>
> With this in mind, I believe I have discharged my action item for WSDL
> review to the best of my ability.  If anyone else has any major
> concerns, please speak up.
>