Analysis of the various proposals

ATF'ers:

There have been several proposals we have considered recently.  I want to
initiate a set of 4 emails to try to consolidate and focus the discussion
on these proposals in preparation for our recommendation to the WSD WG.

Sanjiva proposed an elimination of the message construct [1], simplifying
the way operations are specified in WSDL 1.2:

<operation name="ncname">
    <input body="qname" [headers="list-of-qnames"]/>
    <output body="qname" [headers="list-of-qnames"]/>
</operation>

Jim Webber, Savas (and others) produced an interesting chain of email
resulting in a proposed similar construct for declaring attribute syntax
[2].

<attribute name="ncname" access="get|set|both"
    [(body="qname") | (element="qname")]>
        [<xsd:complexType> ... </xsd:complexType>]
</attribute >

However, it seems to me that there is additional analysis needed:
a) further alignment of the proposals
b) clarification of details, particularly semantics/conceptual model and
how is this model of attributes useful to designers/tools etc.
c) an analysis of how this approach addresses requirements listed by the
ATF.
d) relationship to the functionality suggested by OGSI serviceData.

I will follow up this email with detailed discussion from the point of view
of the above 4 topics.

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
sggraham@us.ibm.com
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
++++++++

Received on Saturday, 19 July 2003 13:17:25 UTC