RE: Requirement: Define Equivalence of WSDL Definitions

+1. See R115 [1].

Each extension to WSDL would have to define its own equivalence, right?

An additional, compatible objective would be to define a canonical form.

--Jeff

[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-re
qs.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:arthur-ryman@rogers.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:20 PM
To: W3C WS-Description
Subject: Requirement: Define Equivalence of WSDL Definitions



The WSDL specification should define what it means for two definitions
of a
part
of a service description to be equivalent. The notion of equivalence
must be
defined
for each definable element, e.g. service, binding, port, etc. For
example,
if two
definitions of a portType only differ in the order that the operations
are
listed in the
document, then they are equivalent.

This requirement is important since in some usage scenarios a WSDL
document
may undergo transformations, e.g. storage and retrieval in a UDDI
registry.
These
transformations must result in a transformed document that is equivalent
to
the
original document.

The defined notion of equivalence should be used as the basis for
digital
signatures
in the sense that two equivalent documents must be assigned the same
digital
signature.

-- Arthur Ryman

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 19:00:39 UTC