- From: Williams, Stuart \(HP Labs, Bristol\) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:43:29 -0000
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: "TAG mailing list" <www-tag@w3.org>
Jacek, I will put discussion of this on the agenda for our next weekly meeting. Stuart -- > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky > Sent: 19 February 2007 17:09 > To: TAG mailing list > Subject: WSDL operation safety in SAWSDL? > > > Dear TAG members, others, I'll be brief this time. 8-) > > I've asked on this list earlier [1], what anyone's thoughts > were on moving WSDL's safety annotation feature [2] to > SAWSDL, as it seems that safety is a perfect example of a > semantic annotation. > > Both WSDL and SAWSDL are currently in CR, but WSDL is moving > fast towards PR, that's why any opinions especially from the > TAG members would be useful to us. > > It seems that WSDL doesn't actually need the safety > annotation all that much for its function (see [3]). However, > the TAG requested that WSDL operations should have a marker > about their safety. This is implemented as an attribute in > WSDL2. Now that we have SAWSDL, it would seem to fit there > better. Do you perhaps think that marking safety in WSDL > using SAWSDL is less adequate than using a specific extension > attribute? > > For more information, see [1]. > > Best regards, > Jacek Kopecky > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Feb/0003.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#safety > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Feb/0007.html > > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 09:47:22 UTC