- From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:30:29 -0700
- To: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- CC: "Malu, Pallavi G" <pallavi.g.malu@intel.com>, Roberto Chinnici <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>
- Message-ID: <3CC707D4.C7BDA76B@webmethods.com>
>NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Prasad Write up question for XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether they need
solicit-response.
Hi,
Sanjiva indicated this morning (in a separate note) that a follow on work is coming in this space.
However since that is not available in the public domain at this point, and I do not quite understand how
the new schema of things obviate the need to represent interactions from an initiator perspective, I am
going ahead and following up on this action item:
A business process interaction typically involves two end-points one initiator of a request and the
receiver of the request. The receiver could in turn send a response back to the initiator. WSDL
specification provides for 4 different port types called:
1. Request/Response
2. One-Way,
3. Solicit/Response and
4. Notification
The first two (Request/Response and One-Way) facilitate capturing the interactions from a "service
provider" or "receiver" perspective; where as the latter two (Solicit/Response and Notification)
facilitate capturing the interactions from an "initiator" perspective.
It would seem it is essential to capture the interactions from the intiator's perspective as well, to be
able to complete the Business Process choreography between the two parties (end-points) from a language
that builds on top of this. That is without capturing who is sending a request (and only who is
receiving) how can you capture the two-party BP choreography? Current well known standards in the BP
space (e.g. RosettaNet) do rely on this way of representing this two represent a business process.
The public versions of both XLANG and WSFL do rely on this as well. That is, they do need and make use of
the Solict/response or Notification portType pattern. Here are a few excerpts from the respective
specifications:
XLANG
Here is an example (please see the highlighted parts).
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<definitions name="StockQuoteUser"
targetNamespace="http://example.com/stockquote/user"
xmlns:tns="http://example.com/stockquote/user"
xmlns:xlang="http://schemas.microsoft.com/biztalk/xlang/"
xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/">
<!-- WSDL type and message definitions used -->
<!-- below have been omitted here for brevity -->
<portType name="RequestSendPortType">
<documentation>
This port sends an asynchronous message requesting
the price of the given stock.
</documentation>
<operation name="FetchLastTradePrice">
<output message="..."/> ---------> Notification Pattern
</operation>
</portType>
<portType name="ResponseReceivePortType">
<documentation>
This port receives an asynchronous message providing
the price of the given stock.
</documentation>
<operation name="ReceiveLastTradePrice">
<input message="..."/>
</operation>
</portType>
<binding name="RequestSendPortBinding"
type="tns:RequestSendPortType">
<!-- details omitted -->
</binding>
<binding name="ResponseReceivePortBinding"
type="tns:ResponseReceivePortType">
<!-- details omitted -->
</binding>
<service name="StockQuoteUserService">
<port name="pSendRequest" binding="tns:RequestSendPortBinding">
<soap:address location="mailto:quote@example1.com"/>
</port>
<port name="pGetResponse" binding="tns:ResponseReceivePortBinding">
<soap:address location="mailto:response@example2.com"/>
</port>
<xlang:behavior>
<xlang:body>
<xlang:sequence>
<xlang:action operation="FetchLastTradePrice"
port="pSendRequest" activation="true"/>
<xlang:action operation="ReceiveLastTradePrice"
port="pGetResponse"/>
</xlang:sequence>
</xlang:body>
</xlang:behavior>
</service>
</definitions>
WSFL
Here is a part of section 4.5 in the WSFL spec reproduced below (please see the highlighted part again)
4.7 Plug Links
Plug links are used in WSFL to model the interaction between remote service providers.A
plug link represents in WSFL the invocation by one service provider of an operation of the
public interface of another service provider. Unlike control and data links, plug links do not
connect activities; rather, they connect two operations with “dual ” signatures.
The source operation of a plug link (on the “calling ”service provider) must have a signature
corresponding to a “notification ” or a “solicit-response ” operation ((as defined in the WSDL
specification,[1 ]).This represents the ability of the caller to initiate the invocation request.
Correspondingly, the target operation (on the “called ” service provider)) must have a dual
“one-way ” or “request-response ” type signature to support the incoming invocation..
However, it is not necessary that the types of the two signatures be the exact dual of each
other,because the language allows for the mapping of input and output parameters.The
only requirement is that the source is able to initiate the request, and the target is able to
receive it. A more detailed discussion of plug links can be found in Section 3.5 “Recursive
Composition Metamodel.”
Hope that puts the issue in the clear.
Best regards,
Prasad
Tom Jordahl wrote:
> Here are the minutes from today's conference call:
>
> Web Services Description Working Group Conference Call
> April 18, 2002
>
> Agenda
> -----------
> 1. Attendance
> 2. Approval of minutes
> 3. New minutes process review
> 4. Review of Action items.
> 5. Coordination with WS Arch WG
> 6. Requirements doc.
> 7. WG approval to publish requirements and usage scenarios documents.
> 8. Tracking new issues
> 9. Issues discussion.
>
> Attendance
> -----------------
> Present:
> *Mike Ballantyne Electronic Data Systems
> David Booth W3C
> Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
> Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
> Glen Daniels Macromedia
> Youenn Fablet Canon
> Dietmar Gaertner Software AG
> Mario Jeckle DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
> Tom Jordahl Macromedia
> Jacek Kopecky Systinet
> *Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems
> Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
> Steve Lind AT&T
> *Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
> Pallavi Malu Intel
> Jonathan Marsh Microsoft Corporation
> *Mike McHugh W. W. Grainger
> *Don Mullen Tibco
> Waqar Sadiq Electronic Data Systems
> Adi Sakala IONA Technologies
> Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft Corporation
> Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
> Sandra Swearingen U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force
> *William Stumbo Xerox
> Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
> Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM Corporation
> Joyce Yang Oracle
> Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
> * lost due to technical difficulties.
>
> Regrets:
> Michael Champion Software AG
> Laurent De Teneuille L'Echangeur
> Tim Finin University of Maryland
> Dan Kulp IONA
> Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle Corporation
> Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
> Jochen Ruetschlin DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
> Arthur Ryman IBM
> Krishna Sankar Cisco Systems
> Dave Solo Citigroup
> William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard Company
> Don Wright Lexmark
>
> Absent:
> Keith Ballinger Microsoft Corporation
> Mike Davoren W. W. Grainger
> Michael Mealling Verisign
> Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
> Johan Pauhlsson L'Echangeur
> Stefano Pugliani Sun
> Radhika Roy AT&T
> Daniel Schutzer Citigroup
>
> Approval of minutes
> -----------------------------
> Last conference call:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/04-minutes.html
> Face-2Face:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0050.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0052.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0060.html
>
> April 4th - Approved
> F2F minutes - Approved
>
> Problems with Verizon switch is preventing many from calling in
>
>
> New minutes process
> --------------------------------
> Details at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0062.html
> Highlights:
> - Publish agenda's to public list
> - Publish minutes to public list, omitting 'sensitive' info.
> - Dialing details will go to admin list.
> - Corrections are sent to the public list.
>
> TomJ: How does the attendance list get to the scribe?
> Jonathan will send in Email to the scribe.
>
> Call adjourned to another conference call bridge.
>
> Action Items
> -------------------
> DONE 2002.02.14 Jonathan: Map Face-to-Face meetings 6 months in advance.
> - Dates and places on web page http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/f2fJuneLogistics.html
>
> IN PROGRESS 2002.04.04 Editors to get CVS requests to Philippe.
> KEITH ABSENT 2002.03.07 Keith. Discuss open content model design.
> DONE 2002.03.21 Editors (Jeff/Sanjiva). Do presentations of top 5 broken
> items in WSDL 1.1 at the F2F.
> DONE 2002.04.04 Everyone to read the use cases and send e-mail raising
> issue for the FTF.
> DONE? 2002.04.04 Jeffrey to rephrase R083
> IN PROGRESS 2002.04.10 Sanjiva - add inconsistent use of port and endpoint to issues
> list Arthur - work on text for a requirement to define
> equivalence of wsdl document
> DONE (by Jonathan) 2002.04.10 Jeffrey Schlimmer to remove expected version annotations.
> PENDING 2002.04.11 Keith B. will write up descriptions for issues discussed in
> presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet. due
> date: next conference call.
> DONE 2002.04.11 Sanjiva W. will post descriptions for issues discussed in
> presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet. due date:
> next conference call
> PENDING 2002.04.11 Jeff Schlimmer Add UPNP example to use cases.
> DONE 2002.04.12 David Booth ask Eric for clarification and will cc RDF interest
> group.
> DONE 2002.04.12 Jeffery, Sandeep, Waqar - have drafts ready by next telcon on
> Thursday 4/18.
>
> NEW ACTION - 2002.04.18 - Waqar will identify use cases to remove.
> NEW ACTION - 2002.04.18 - Waqar will post by next Tuesday a draft.
> Publish if no objections at the next telecon.
>
> DONE 2002.04.12 JM will pursue use case task force with coordination group.
>
> Coordination with WS Arch WG
> ----------------------------
> Jonathan:
> - Arch group has proposed they own the Glossary and Usage Scenarios docs.
> - Description will not create their own, just comment on theirs.
>
> Waqar: concern that we might not like the docs we have to use.
> Jonathan: doesn't see any reason why our feedback would be ignored
> Glen: our usage may be more detailed than theirs
> Jonathan: Use cases would be more detailed than usage scenarios and slightly different
> TomJ: Let 'em have it, and lets get on to WSDL
>
> Requirements doc
> --------------------------
> Latest doc:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/att-0104/01-ws-desc-reqs-20020417.html
> Jonathan moved rejects to the bottom. Still editorial work to be done
>
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up R001
> Proposed new wording for R001 from Dave Booth:
> [Accepted, Must, Charter] The language developed by the WG must permit any programming model,
> transport or protocol for communication between peers. (Last revised 21 Feb 2002.)
>
> New requirement from Mark Baker:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0075.html
> Jonathan wants to add as a draft requirement. No objections
>
> WG approval to publish requirements and usage scenarios documents
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> NEW ACTION: 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up requirements document,
> and we will have a publishable draft by next Tuesday,
> Publication process will start after conference call Thursday.
>
> Discussion about how the review process will work.
>
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan, Philippe Investigate setting up new mailing list for review comments.
>
> Tracking new issues
> -----------------------
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Sanjiva Add 5 new issues raised by Prasad in Email to the issues list.
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar Add new use case raised on the mailing list to use cases.
>
> Issues discussion
> ------------------
> Issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?
> Thread starts at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0059.html
>
> Prasad: Wants to keep them.
> JacekK: Address on port don't make sense for these operations
> Various arguments that something *like* solicit-response should be kept in the spec
> JeffS: It's not obvious to me that we need to keep solicit-response in the spec.
>
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Prasad Write up question for XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether
> they need solicit-response.
>
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan Solicit input from XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether
> they need solicit-response.
>
> Issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using ncnames?
> Thread starts at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0061.html
>
> Tabled till next time due to time limitations.
>
> Summary of New Action Items
> ---------------------------
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar will identify use cases to remove.
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar will post by next Tuesday a draft.
> Publish if no objections at the next telecon.
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up R001
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan, Philippe Investigate setting up new mailing list for review comments.
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Sanjiva Add 5 new issues raised by Prasad in to the issues list.
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar Add new use case raised on the mailing list
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Prasad Write up question for XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether
> they need solicit-response.
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan Solicit input from XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether
> they need solicit-response.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Architect, ATG; webMethods Inc.,
432 Lakeside Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3793, USA
Tel: (408) 962-5226 mailto: pyendluri@webmethods.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 15:25:54 UTC