Re: LC Comments from SAWSDL WG (WS Policy issue 4188)

Hi Felix,

This resolution is fine with us.

Thanks,
Joel


Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote on 01/16/2007 05:15:42 PM:

> Hello Joel,
>
> Thank you for your comment. The WS Policy WG has is tracking this issue
> as http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4188 .
>
> We discussed it at http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-ws-policy-irc#T22-07-41
> . Our resolution is that we agree with your sentiment. We will add a
> reference to SAWSDL not in the attachment document [1], but in the
> guidelines document [2], and make explicit in that document that there
> is no overlap between SAWSDL and WS Policy. See also the discussion
> thread at [3].
>
> [1]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachment.html

> [2]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html

> [3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0111.html
>
> Regards, Felix.
>
> discussed Joel Farrell wrote:
> > The SAWSDL Working Group has reviewed the Web Services Policy 1.5 set
of
> > specifications and has the following comments.
> >
> > We assume that semantic annotations and policy attachments are
> > orthogonal extensions to WSDL 2.0 (and 1.1) and when combined on the
> > same WSDL component , can be processed and interpreted independently.
> > You should confirm that this is the case.
> >
> > We recommend that the following statement be made in Web Services
Policy
> > 1.5 - Attachment to avoid possible future conflicts between SAWSDL and
> > the WS-Policy specifications: Policy Assertions on interfaces, (or WSDL
> > 1.1 portTypes), operations and messages (the abstract WSDL
descriptions)
> > SHOULD NOT describe the formal semantics of messages or the action
> > performed by the operations.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joel
> >
>