W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

Re: proposal for resolving service type issues

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:48:10 +0200
Message-ID: <008601c210af$611ce500$b64b6a20@lankabook2>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi Jean-Jacques,

> Sanjiva, I like your proposal. In particular, I think there is a
> lot of merit in bringing the notion of an abstract service into


> > 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.

Oh yes, good point!

> > 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.

Yeah, the other option of specifying structural equivalence
for portTypes is just too hard to get into IMO. So despite the
potential for "user error" this appears to be the best solution.

Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 14:48:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:23 UTC