RE: Proposed WSA doc language from RE: Separate concepts for "ser vice " and "targetResource?"

Many thanks to Ugo for taking the time and effort to create a 
clear and referenced proposal.

daveh
co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 10:20 AM
To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed WSA doc language from RE: Separate concepts for
"service " and "targetResource?" 



> we do need (IMHO) to make sure that concepts in WSDL such as
> targetResource (or whatever they end up calling it) map on to concepts in
> WSA, or propose a better conceptual model to the WSD group that meets
their
> needs and ours.

I already made a proposal. From my previous note:

"If I had to make a suggestion, I would say WSD should provide some
(optional) syntax to specify the old type of aggregation, and leave it at
that. That syntax would simply collect a bunch of "new" services together
under the same XML element. No need to base that syntax on any concept of
common URIs identifying resources or other things."

This, by the way, corresponds to option #2 as expressed during the WSD F2F
in [1]:

"2. service group definition
   <serviceGroup>
     <service>
     </service>
   </serviceGroup>"


> wsdwg:targetResource is more or less  the "service" concept which is
> described in 2.2.31.

I disagree. The wsdl:targetResource would be something different than our
"service" concept, which I believe corresponds to the "new" WSDL service
concept (collection of entry points with same interface).

wsdl:targetResource is something introduced to bring together a bunch of
"new" WSDL services (a serviceGroup), so it cannot be identified with any of
them (or it could be identified with one of them at the most).


Ugo

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0042.html

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 12:54:46 UTC