- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:30:34 +0200
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- CC: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sanjiva, I like your proposal. In particular, I think there is a lot of merit in bringing the notion of an abstract service into the foreground. Please find my comments below. Jean-Jacques. > We require that all services defined in a single document be of a single > service type. This is fine... > That type is indicated by inserting the following required declaration: > > <implements serviceType="qname"/> ... however I don't think we can require the wsdl:implement element to be always present. For example, the WSDL file may only contain an abstract service declaration, which is refined and implemented in a second WSDL file. I think wsld:implement should be optional unless there is a concrete service definition (i.e. binding), in which case it should be mandatory. > two portTypes are said to be equivalent iff they have the same qualified > name. Hmmm... somebody could get it wrong and you could end up with two portType with the same qname but different children EIIs. It's probably not our business, though, and more like a programmer's bug.
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 13:32:04 UTC