W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > July 2006

WSDL 1.1 Support

From: Kunal Verma <verma@cs.uga.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:00:53 -0400
Message-ID: <8f9ef0aa0607110900i479c3ebg550bb25aba3bb2c8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "SAWSDL public list" <public-ws-semann@w3.org>

Claudio and Jacek,

As a start on our action item, we made a few changes and additions
to section 3 of the document (see below).  We also suggest adding
Appendix D (moving the current D to E, etc.) that shows the complete
running example in annotated WSDL 1.1.  Finally a few related things
are mentioned.

John and Kunal


3. WSDL 1.1 Support

The mechanism for semantic annotation described in this specification can
also be applied to WSDL 1.1 [WSDL 1.1] conformant Web services descriptions.
All the XML attributes defined in this specification apply without modification
to the WSDL 1.1 descriptions.
However, in some cases they are applied to different elements in the WSDL
document structure.

Input and Output

Annotation of XML Schema types with modelReference, liftingSchemaMapping or
loweringSchemaMapping can be accomplished using the approach
described for annotating these elements in WSDL 2.0.
In addition, a liftingSchemaMapping, loweringSchemaMapping or modelReference
attribute may be added to a part element (under a message element) to specify
an input or output annotation that applies to a part of a message.
These elements are part of the portType structure in WSDL 1.1 which generally
corresponds to the WSDL 2.0 interface structure.  One difference is that
that portTypes do not support inheritance (extends relation).


In WSDL 1.1, faults are specified as messages that are generated when a
particular condition arises.
Annotations for fault messages are done just as annotations are done for
any other output message.


An operation is annotated as in WSDL 2.0.


A portType is annotated in the same way as a WSDL 2.0 interface.

Running Example in WSDL 1.1

The same running example as shown in Appendix A, is reproduced in
Append D with minimal changes.  In particular, the following changes
were necessary:

1. ?
2. ?

Further examples, including one with annotated message parts, are shown
in the Use Cases and Examples document.


Found a couple of related things:

1. Perhaps we should say before or after showing the WSDL Running example
in section 1.4, that a complete annotated version is given in Appendix A.
Might also be useful to highlight the annotations in Appendix A somehow
(bold, italics or font change).  This makes it easier to pick out the

2. The following sentence seems to be missing something:
"The complete wsdl file is given below and available as separate

3. Has the example in the appendix been validated?
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 16:01:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:14 UTC