- From: Joel Farrell <joelf@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:07:33 -0500
- To: SAWSDL public list <public-ws-semann@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFA9FC46A2.191EF21F-ON85257268.0068A49D-85257268.00691132@us.ibm.com>
Hi, If there are no objections, I will reply that this resolution is fine. The WS-Policy Guidelines document has not been updated yet, but I will review the text. Regards, Joel ----- Forwarded by Joel Farrell/Cambridge/IBM on 01/19/2007 02:03 PM ----- Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote on 01/16/2007 05:15:42 PM: > 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.htm > > 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 Friday, 19 January 2007 19:07:50 UTC