- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:15:42 +0900
- To: Joel Farrell <joelf@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-ws-policy-comments@w3.org, SAWSDL public list <public-ws-semann@w3.org>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
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 >
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 22:16:01 UTC