RE: Draft agenda: 24 June TAG teleconference (Arch document, WSA update)

Noah,

I think you misunderstood my points.  The discussion is around what WSD
should do, now that SOAP 1.2 has GET support.  Not even a hint of a
suggestion that XMLP should do more work.

Maybe it's simply a matter of the TAG asking WSD to do a bit of work in this
area.  At any rate, I think it's always useful for the TAG to have
discussions about web service architecture.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:39 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Draft agenda: 24 June TAG teleconference (Arch document,
> WSA update)
>
>
> I am not a super-expert in WSDL, and in any case don't have
> time to figure
> out all the specifics of David's concern.  One clarification
> does seem to
> be in order though:
>
> David Orchard writes:
>
> >  The WSDL 1.1 GET binding with query parameters -
> > the type suggested by the SOAP 1.2 specification
> > for GET - does not provide any mechanism for
> > expressing the syntactice schema of the types
> > expressed in the GET query.
>
> I'm not sure where you get the impression that any particular WSDL
> mechanism is "suggested" by SOAP 1.2.  The new versions of
> the SOAP drafts
> say [1]:
>
>         "Note:
>
>         Conventions for specific URI encodings of
>         procedure names and arguments, as well as
>         for controlling the inclusion of such
>         arguments in the SOAP RPC body could
>         be established in conjunction with the
>         development of Web Service interface
>         description languages, could be developed
>         when SOAP is bound to particular
>         programming languages, or could be
>         established on an application or
>         procedure-specific basis.'
>
> There is no reference to any particular Web Services
> interface language,
> and certainly not to any particular "binding" that happens to
> be available
> in today's versions of WSDL.  The note above is a signal to
> groups such as
> the WSDL working group that they may wish to consider development of
> bindings from (the resource identifying aspects of) RPC interface
> descriptions into various URL schemes.  In fact, there is (as
> far as I can
> tell) no normative reference from the SOAP drafts to WSDL at
> all.  There
> is certainly no presumption that some existing WSDL HTTP
> binding would be
> the one to use (though you certainly can if it meets your needs.)
>
> So, I have some concern that you may be raising to the Tag
> concerns which
> are based on at least a partial misunderstanding of what the
> Protocols WG
> has agreed to.  Thank you.
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#RPCW
ebArguments


------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 18:40:31 UTC