FW: wrpc:signature for RPC style

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as a CR016 [1].  The Working Group declined to make any changes to
the wrpc:signature extension at this time, as it is not clear that this
schema-centric feature would be useful to users of wrpc:signature, who
are generally working in programming language paradigms without a clear
corresponding feature.  A more detailed rationale can be found at [2].

 


Unless you let us know otherwise by 13 April, we will assume you agree
with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR016 

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0024.html

 

 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com
<mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com>   ][  http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes
<http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes>   ]

 

 

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Ramkumar Menon
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:20 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: wrpc:signature for RPC style

 

Hi,
I had a question on the wrpc:signature extension. [section 4.1.1 - WSDL
2 Part 2:Adjuncts], in conjunction with usage of XSD substitution
Groups. 

In the RPC signature for the operations, would it be better in terms of
clarity, to allow specification of substitution group members in place
of the head elements, esp., in the scenario where the latter are defined
to be abstract in the type system ?  

 

Illustrating with an example.....
 

<types>

<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema> " xmlns=" http://www.example.org
<http://www.example.org/> "   targetNamespace=" http://www.example.org
<http://www.example.org/> "
            elementFormDefault="qualified"> 
  <xsd:element name="InfoProduct" type="ProductType"/>


  <xsd:complexType name="ProductType">
    <xsd:sequence>
      <xsd:element ref="Code"/>
    </xsd:sequence>
  </xsd:complexType> 


  <xsd:element name="Code" type="CodeType"/>

  

  <xsd:element name="ProductCode" substitutionGroup="Code">
    <xsd:complexType>
      <xsd:complexContent>
        <xsd:extension base="CodeType"> 
          <xsd:attribute name="zone" type="xsd:string"/>
        </xsd:extension>
      </xsd:complexContent>
    </xsd:complexType>
  </xsd:element> 


  <xsd:complexType name="CodeType">
      <xsd:sequence>
        <xsd:element name="organization" type="xsd:string"/>
        <xsd:element name="value" type="xsd:string"/> 
      </xsd:sequence>
    </xsd:complexType>

</xsd:schema>

</types>
 

Can I define my operation rpc signature to be


<interface .....>

   <operation name="ProductSearch" ....    

         wrpc:signature="ProductCode" #in >   <!-- "ProductCode" can
substitute "Code" as per schema -->

       <input messageLabel="In" element="sch:InfoProduct"/>

    </operation>
 

rather than

 

<interface .....> 

   <operation name="ProductSearch" ....    

         wrpc:signature="Code" #in >

       <input messageLabel="In" element="sch:InfoProduct"/>

    </operation>

 

The scenario becomes even more practical when the element "Code" is
defined as "abstract" in the XSD, and ProductCode/some other element is
defined to always substitute the "Code" element in the isntance.. 

So, the statement could be something like

"If the type system defines an element to be abstract in the definition,
and such elements are used for defining message structures within the
WSDL definition, then the rpc signature could optionally hold/substitute
those elements with alternate element definitions that are defined to be
substitutable for the former, as per the type system. " 

 

Pls let me know your thoughts on this.

 

 

rgds,

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

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor