- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:24:31 -0500
- To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF2D6B1C95.453A6A41-ON85257665.006A31A8-85257665.006AA013@us.ibm.com>
Proposal Number 3
==============
1) WS-Transfer (and equivalent in other specs)
Keep:
- - - - -
An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports WS-Transfer, or its features, by
including the WS-Transfer Policy assertion within its WSDL. By doing so
the endpoint is indicating that the corresponding WS-Transfer operations
are supported by that endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear
in its WSDL.
But drop:
- - - - - - - -
(i.e. the WSDL that MAY be retrievable by using a WS-MetadataExchange
GetMetadata with a Dialect IRI of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/).
An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WS-Transfer WSDL by using the
following WS-MetadataExchange Dialect:
Dialect IRI @Identifier value
========================================================
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-tra/TransferWSDL Not defined
The WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific
metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service.
For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a
particular security mechanism used to protect the WS-Transfer operations
supported by this endpoint.
2) To the end of the 'keep' part above,
add:
- - - -
The WS-Transfer WSDL containing the operations indicated by the
TransferResource Assertion MAY be exposed as described in
WS-MetadataExchange [WS-Mex] section 9 . This WS-Transfer WSDL can be
annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed
by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have
policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used to
protect the WS-Transfer operations supported by this endpoint.
3) WS-MetadataExchange
Add section 9 :
- - - - - - - - - - -
9. Exposing WSDL for Operations Implicitly Defined by a Policy Assertion
An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports a specific feature by including
the feature?s policy assertion within its WSDL. By doing so, the endpoint
is indicating that corresponding operations (if any) are supported by that
endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear in its WSDL. An
example of this is an endpoint that indicates the use of WS-Transfer
[WS-Transfer] by the use of the wstrp:TransferResource WS-Policy
[WS-Policy] assertion.
An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WSDL of the policy defined feature by
using the http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ dialect and the dialect
identifier of the target namespace of the feature.
Dialect IRI @
Identifier value Metadata returned
====================================================================================================
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ target namespace of endpoint
Endpoint WSDL
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ target namespace of feature
supported by the endpoint Feature WSDL
The Feature WSDL, the WSDL associated with these implicit operations, can
be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be
needed by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL can
have policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used
to protect the feature's operations supported by this endpoint. When a
Feature WSDL does not provide a concrete endpoint, the consumer MUST use
the concrete aspects of the endpoint's WSDL.
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
10/27/2009 09:24 AM
To
Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
cc
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org"
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Issue 7912 (Action 118): Proposal for "Consider using Dialect
Identifier for implicit operation WSDL? "
Hi Ram,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with the editorial changes - they
make the text clearer. However, I don't think we should remove this:
> "If the WSDL includes a wsdl:service element then the endpoint indicated
within the WSDL MUST be used for the operations defined by this WSDL
document."
The intention was to state something more than the WSDL semantics - namely
that the feature's WSDL may indicate that the feature is supported at a
different endpoint. Perhaps this isn't clear and it could be re-written
like this?:
> "If a Feature WSDL is abstract, then the endpoint of the Endpoint WSDL
MUST be used for the feature operations. If a Feature WSDL defines a
concrete endpoint, then this endpoint MUST be used for the feature
operations."
On a separate point, I also noticed that the following text in brackets
below is incorrect as it also requires @Identifier=tns. I think we
should consider simply removing it in order to simplify the text.
> ... (i.e. the WSDL that MAY be retrievable by using a
WS-MetadataExchange GetMetadata with a Dialect IRI of
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/).
It is quite confusing to see where we are with the proposal, so below is
an updated proposal which (I think) reflects your suggested changes and my
suggested amendments below. The changes from the first proposal are
highlighted.
Best regards
Katy
Proposal Number 2
==============
1) WS-Transfer (and equivalent in other specs)
Keep:
- - - - -
An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports WS-Transfer, or its features, by
including the WS-Transfer Policy assertion within its WSDL. By doing so
the endpoint is indicating that the corresponding WS-Transfer operations
are supported by that endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear
in its WSDL.
But drop:
- - - - - - - -
(i.e. the WSDL that MAY be retrievable by using a WS-MetadataExchange
GetMetadata with a Dialect IRI of http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/).
An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WS-Transfer WSDL by using the
following WS-MetadataExchange Dialect:
Dialect IRI @Identifier value
========================================================
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-tra/TransferWSDL Not defined
The WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific
metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service.
For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a
particular security mechanism used to protect the WS-Transfer operations
supported by this endpoint.
2) To the end of the 'keep' part above,
add:
- - - -
The WS-Transfer WSDL containing the operations indicated by the
TransferResource Assertion MAY be exposed as described in
WS-MetadataExchange [WS-Mex] section 9 . This WS-Transfer WSDL can be
annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed
by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have
policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used to
protect the WS-Transfer operations supported by this endpoint.
3) WS-MetadataExchange
Add section 9 :
- - - - - - - - - - -
9. Exposing WSDL for Operations Implicitly Defined by a Policy Assertion
An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports a specific feature by including
the feature?s policy assertion within its WSDL. By doing so, the endpoint
is indicating that corresponding operations (if any) are supported by that
endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear in its WSDL. An
example of this is an endpoint that indicates the use of WS-Transfer
[WS-Transfer] by the use of the wstrp:TransferResource WS-Policy
[WS-Policy] assertion.
An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WSDL of the policy defined feature by
using the http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ dialect and the dialect
identifier of the target namespace of the feature.
Dialect IRI @
Identifier value Metadata returned
====================================================================================================
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ target namespace of endpoint
Endpoint WSDL
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ target namespace of feature
supported by the endpoint Feature WSDL
The Feature WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific
metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service.
For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a
particular security mechanism used to protect the feature's operations
supported by this endpoint. If a Feature WSDL is abstract, then the
endpoint of the Endpoint WSDL MUST be used for the feature operations. If
a Feature WSDL defines a concrete endpoint, then this endpoint MUST be
used for the feature operations.
From:
Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
To:
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:
Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org"
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Date:
26/10/2009 22:30
Subject:
RE: Issue 7912 (Action 118): Proposal for "Consider using Dialect
Identifier for implicit operation WSDL? "
Hi Katy,
I have a few editorial comments.
Ø An endpoint MAY indicate support for a specific feature (e.g. a
specification) and the corresponding feature operations by inclusion of a
policy assertion within its WSDL. In such a case, the feature's
operations do not explicitly appear in the endpoint's WSDL.
For consistency across all three parts of the proposal, I suggest
rephrasing the above as follows:
?An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports a specific feature by including
the feature?s policy assertion within its WSDL. By doing so, the endpoint
is indicating that corresponding operations (if any) are supported by that
endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear in its WSDL?.
Ø An example of this is an endpoint indicating its conformation to the
WS-Transfer [WS-Transfer] definition
s/an endpoint indicating its conformation to the WS-Transfer/an endpoint
that indicates the use of WS-Transfer/
Ø If the WSDL includes a wsdl:service element then the endpoint indicated
within the WSDL MUST be used for the operations defined by this WSDL
document.
Since this text restates the normal WSDL semantics, I suggest removing
this.
Thanks.
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [
mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Katy Warr
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 6:27 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Cc: Doug Davis
Subject: Issue 7912 (Action 118): Proposal for "Consider using Dialect
Identifier for implicit operation WSDL? "
Further to the last meeting, here is a complete proposal for
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7912 for the action (
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/118) against Doug and me.
1) WS-Transfer (and equivalent in other specs)
Keep:
- - - - -
An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports WS-Transfer, or its features, by
including the WS-Transfer Policy assertion within its WSDL. By doing so
the endpoint is indicating that the corresponding WS-Transfer operations
are supported by that endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear
in its WSDL (i.e. the WSDL that MAY be retrievable by using a
WS-MetadataExchange GetMetadata with a Dialect IRI of
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/).
But drop:
- - - - - - - -
An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WS-Transfer WSDL by using the
following WS-MetadataExchange Dialect:
Dialect IRI @Identifier value
========================================================
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-tra/TransferWSDL Not defined
The WS-Transfer WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific
metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service.
For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a
particular security mechanism used to protect the WS-Transfer operations
supported by this endpoint.
2) To the end of the 'keep' part above,
add:
- - - -
The WS-Transfer WSDL containing the operations indicated by the
TransferResource Assertion MAY be exposed as described in
WS-MetadataExchange [WS-Mex] section 9 . This WS-Transfer WSDL can be
annotated to indicate any endpoint specific metadata that might be needed
by clients interacting with this service. For example, the WSDL MAY have
policy assertions that indicate a particular security mechanism used to
protect the WS-Transfer operations supported by this endpoint.
3) WS-MetadataExchange
Add section 9 :
- - - - - - - - - - -
9. Exposing WSDL for Operations Implicitly Defined by a Policy Assertion
An endpoint MAY indicate support for a specific feature (e.g. a
specification) and the corresponding feature operations by inclusion of a
policy assertion within its WSDL. In such a case, the feature's
operations do not explicitly appear in the endpoint's WSDL. An example of
this is an endpoint indicating its conformation to the WS-Transfer
[WS-Transfer] definition of a Transfer Resource by the use of the
wstrp:TransferResource WS-Policy [WS-Policy] assertion.
An endpoint MAY choose to expose the WSDL of the policy defined feature by
using the http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ dialect and the dialect
identifier of the target namespace of the feature.
Dialect IRI @
Identifier value Metadata returned
====================================================================================================
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ target namespace of endpoint
Endpoint WSDL
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ target namespace of feature
supported by the endpoint Feature WSDL
The Feature WSDL can be annotated to indicate any endpoint specific
metadata that might be needed by clients interacting with this service.
For example, the WSDL MAY have policy assertions that indicate a
particular security mechanism used to protect the feature's operations
supported by this endpoint. If the WSDL includes a wsdl:service element
then the endpoint indicated within the WSDL MUST be used for the
operations defined by this WSDL document.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 19:25:21 UTC