RE: Property (was RE: updated service model)

In addition to what SOAP 1.2 says, it's interesting to look at recent discussions within the WSDL group on this subject, for example http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0144.html . (I don't think the WSDL group has finalized the discussion on Features and Properties yet, and actually I heard they might not include it in WSDL 2.0).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Paul Denning
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:59 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Property (was RE: updated service model)
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:38 PM 2004-01-14, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > 2. Property is a deliberately vague term. However, it might
> > > mean something like 'all messages pertaining to a given
> > > task', or it might mean 'all messages that have a WS-CAF
> > > header in them'.
> >
> >I'm currently in the mindset of wanting to remove anything 
> that doesn't have
> >a very compelling definition, and thost concepts that don't have any
> >*compelling* need to be there.  Again, I'd rather leave them 
> in than argue,
> >but am waiting for others to give their opinion.
> 
> SOAP 1.2 defines the convention for describing Features and Bindings:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapfeatspec
> 
> <quote>
> In general, a SOAP message is the information that one SOAP 
> node wishes to 
> exchange with another SOAP node according to a particular set 
> of features, 
> including a MEP. In addition, there may be information essential to 
> exchanging a message that is not part of the message itself. Such 
> information is sometimes called message metadata. In the model, the 
> message, any message metadata, and the various information items that 
> enable features are represented as abstractions called properties.
> </quote>
> 
> I would only add that the properties could be made part of 
> the message 
> (probably in a SOAP header block).
> 
> We need to be careful of using the same terms that are used 
> in SOAP 1.2, 
> but with different meaning.
> 
> Since our definition of a web service includes SOAP, I have 
> no problem 
> using SOAP concepts like "feature" and "property", if we use 
> them consistently.
> 
> There may be a way to work in MEP and relate it to Choreography.
> 
> I have often felt we needed to say something about "layers", 
> just so we can 
> then say things like "MEPs operate at layer X, and 
> Choreography at layer Y" 
> (where X and Y are URI's of course).
> 
> "Layer" could be a "property".
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:37:54 UTC