RE: SOAP UML diagram

It is not a header block, even if it has *similar* semantics to a header 
block with
mU='true' and role='http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/ultimate
Receiver'.

The SOAP1.2 spec used to contain language that suggested that the 
SOAP:Body
had a relationship to a header block[1]. However, that language was 
removed in
subsequent drafts, e.g. [2] as a result of the discussion that Mark cited.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#N40069A
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/#soapbody

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 06/04/2003 06:00:09 PM:

> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Martin Chapman
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:24 PM
> > To: David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram
> >
> >
> > > Some comments:
> > > - I believe that a body is a header that is targetted at
> > the ultimate
> > > receiver
> >
> > The 1.2 doc doesn't really say that, and makes a point at
> > keeping the header
> > and body concepts quite separate.
> > Looking at the rules for the contents, both are identical except that
> > headers may have role, mustunderstand and relay attributes.
> > From a modelling perspective this actually makes a header a
> > subclass of
> > body!!!! Since thats not really how its presented in 1.2 I suggest we
> > avoid this trout!
> >
> 
> The body effectively has role=ultimate receiver and mustUnderstand=true.
> How does "refining" something make it a parent in modelling?  Headers 
have
> these things being optional and a body effectively has them set. 
Therefore,
> body is-a header.
> 
> Now MB makes the assertion that this was disproven on dist-app, but 
darned
> if I can find the discussion.
> 
> Dave
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 18:31:06 UTC