Re: Issue 6917: preliminary proposal for Event Tags; tag values

1) I'm sorry, but I don't see the similarity you speak of. Perhaps we 
have different understandings of SAWSDL.

2) Event Types are not the same thing as WSDL operations. You may choose 
to *model* Event Types as WSDL operations, but such a model has inherent 
limitations. For example, suppose someone created a Notification Format 
in which a single Notification carried multiple Events of different types?

3) I merely wanted to point out that one of the advantages to the 
EventDescriptions proposal for 6401 is that is allowed for "additional 
metadata" to be associated with specific Event Types. If we accept the 
EventDescriptions proposal for 6401, then we could choose to resolve 
6917 in this manner.

- gp

On 8/3/2009 9:33 AM, Li, Li (Li) wrote:
> Gil,
> Thanks for the proposals. I have a few questions below.
> 1) After your revisions to the event tags, they now look very much like
> SAWSDL, another W3C spec [1]. Would you consider adopting it instead of
> inventing a new one?
> 2) WSDL already has a construct called port type that can group event
> types (operations). If WSDL 2.0 is used, you can even get an interface
> hierarchy (sort of like topic tree). Should we reuse this structure for
> identifying event types as well?
> 3) Your examples attach event tags to the <wse:eventType> element
> devised in a proposal to issue 6401. Do these examples suggest the event
> tags can only be used in that element and therefore this issue (6917) is
> dependent on issue 6401?
> [1]
> Li

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 17:56:04 UTC