RE: [Bug 5346] Operation parameter in bindingOperation is of type QName

Hello Tammo,

>"AFAIK, WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 are somehow different in
>this case. WSDL 2.0 supports interface inheritance, thus
>inherited operations still have another namespace (i.e.
>different to targetNamespace). I believe that's why they
>are using QNames to identify an operation."

Your observations are correct: a) WSDL 20: requires QNames to distinguish Binding Operations and b) WSDL 11: an NCName is sufficient to distinguish Binding Operations.

As you know, a WSDL 11 document has a targetNamespace. There aren't any harmful effects in using QNames for identifying binding operations in WSDL 11 documents. The WG used the "align WSDL 11 EIs with WSDL 20 component designators" principle and used simple forms in the example to illustrate the concept.

I hope this helps to close issue 5346.

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tammo van Lessen
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 5:39 AM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Bug 5346] Operation parameter in bindingOperation is of type QName]


Hi all,

I'm reposting this because the original mail did not make it into the
public mailinglist archive - so I was not sure whether you've got my
mail or not. My apologies if you receive this twice.

Best regards,
   Tammo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Bug 5346] Operation parameter in bindingOperation is of
type QName
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:26:19 +0100
From: Tammo van Lessen <tvanlessen@taval.de>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: public-ws-policy@w3.org <public-ws-policy@w3.org>,  Christopher B
Ferris (chrisfer@us.ibm.com) <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
References:
<4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22574A99DAC7B7@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft>

Hi,

Paul Cotton wrote:
> Note that the comment actually refers to [1] which is an Editor's CVS
> version of the spec.  But I believe the comment applies to the
> published WG Note at [2].

Yes, it also applies to [2].

>> I'm wondering whether the second parameter ('operation') in
>> operation binding references should be really a QName. Shouldn't it
>> be a NCName? The examples are also referring to NCName, like
>> http://...#wsdl11.bindingOperation(TicketAgentSoap/listFlights)
>
> Here is my initial reaction:
....
> In particular the WSDL 2.0 table [4] defines the operation parameter
> for the binding references (e.g Binding Fault, Binding Operation,
> Binding Message Reference, and Binding Fault Reference) as QName.
> Since our table is based on the WSDL 2.0 table, I believe that we
> defined the second parameter's type as QNAME to match what was done
> in the WSDL 2.0 table [4].

AFAIK, WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 are somehow different in this case. WSDL
2.0 supports interface inheritance, thus inherited operations still have
another namespace (i.e. different to targetNamespace). I believe that's
why they are using QNames to identify an operation.

This is not the case in WSDL 1.1. The binding is specified for a
particular portType (without supporting inheritance), thus nested
bindings to operations can obviously only correspond to those defined in
this portType. Therefore I think that the tuple (binding, operation) is
sufficient to identify the operation uniquely.

But of course I might have got it wrong...

Best regards,
   Tammo

--
Tammo van Lessen
Institute of Architecture of Application Systems |Tel. (+49)711 7816 487
University of Stuttgart                          |Fax. (+49)711 7816 472
Universitaetsstr. 38, 70569 Stuttgart            |Room 1.132

Received on Sunday, 10 February 2008 22:14:50 UTC