- From: <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:05:02 -0400
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF9405A639.1515790C-ON85256BD5.0031DAF0@us.ibm.com>
One way around this is to make the implements element a child of the service. ++++++++ Steve Graham sggraham@us.ibm.com (919)254-0615 (T/L 444) Emerging Technologies ++++++++ "Jean-Jacques Moreau" To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> <moreau@crf. cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> canon.fr> Subject: Re: proposal for resolving service type issues Sent by: www-ws- desc-request@w3. org 06/10/2002 01:30 PM 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.
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 12:18:53 UTC