- From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 03:02:57 +0200
- To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
> 9. Issue 51: Asymmetry between soap:body and soap:header [18]. Thread
> starts at [19] (Kevin), continues at [20] and [21].
Since it has been a little while, I thought it might be helpful to provide a brief summary of discussions around this issue so far as a starting point for this agenda item:
1. Restatement of issue:
In wsdl1.1, when one defines a portType, one associates operation input/output/fault with a SINGLE message. Then when one defines the binding to SOAP, one specifies which parts in this message go to the soap body, which parts go as header blocks. But it leaves a few points unclear:
Firstly, on the one hand, soap:body assumes all parts are from the message specified in portType definition. On the other hand, soap:header has a REQUIRED message attribute. To many people, the message attribute hints that soap header can include parts from messages other than the one defined for the operation. This is one aspect of the asymmetry. The issue is:
Should we remove soap:header@message, or at least make it optional?
Secondly, on the one hand, soap:body has an attribute called "partS" which can specify a LIST of parts to be included in the soap body. On the other hand, soap:header has an attribute called "part" which only allows specifying a SINGLE part for header. This is the second aspect of the asymmetry. The issue is:
Should we change soap:header@part to soap:header@parts to allow specify a LIST of parts
2. Recap of the discussions and proposed solutions:
There were a few messages from Jacek and Jean-Jacques about this issue. We clarified the confusing points and seem agreed on the following proposals:
- Remove soap:header@message attribute. All the parts should be defined in the corresponding input/output/fault message, no matter it will goes in the body or in the header. See jacek's rationale http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0081.html
- Leave soap:header@part as it is. Unlike soap body parts, each header block may have different value for attributes such as role and mustUnderstand. so it doesn't add too much value to allow specifying a list of parts for soap:header.
This brought up a related issues that should be addressed separately - The current soap:header construct can not address header attributes role and mustUnderstand. See more comments at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0108.html
Hope this will make the discussion a little easier.
Regards,
Kevin
------------------------------
Canyang Kevin Liu
SAP Labs, Palo Alto
Technology Architecture
3475 Deer Creek Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
(650) 849-5167
http://www.saplabs.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:18 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Agenda for 5 Sept 2002 WS Description WG
>
>
>
> Dial in information (members only) [0]:
>
> [0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Sep/0000.html
>
> See the public WG page [1] for pointers to current documents and other
> information, and the private page [2] for administrative matters.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/admin
>
> If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list
> before the start of the telcon.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Agenda
>
> 1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is:
> Jochen Ruetschlin (fallback Bill Stumbo, Sandra
> Swearingen, Jerry
> Thrasher, Steve Tuecke, William Vambenepe, Don Wright, Joyce Yang)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2. Approval of minutes [3]. Pallavi and Barbara sent late regrets.
>
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0135.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3. Review of Action items.
> ? 2002-07-21: GlenD and JJM to write up proposal for handling
> MEPs with regard to Soap
> ? 2002-07-21: GLEN & Sanjiva to write up the comment about MEPs
> & features to XMLP group
> ? 2002-07-21: GlenD to send DavidB details on hosting November
> F2F
> PENDING 2002-07-21: JM to decide potential November F2F
> overlap on Wed
> Nov 13 with Arch
> ? 2002-07-21: Jeffrey & Gudge to flesh out a proposal for
> omitting operation from soap binding
> ? 2002-07-21: Don Mullen to write up an issue on transport
> attribute
> DONE [4] 2002-07-25: Glen write up an issue on transport URIs
> compliance
> with SOAP
> ? 2002-07-25: Sanjiva and Gudge to work on combining the AM
>
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0132.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4. SOAP 1.2 Last Call [9, 10, 11] call for review [12].
> Awaiting text
> from Glen and/or Sanjiva. I think we missed the boat on this one.
>
> [9] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/
> [10] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/
> [11] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/
> [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0001.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 5. FTF Agenda
> Review, rearrange and augment first draft of the agenda [13].
> Note that
> the facilities don't accommodate overlapping groups, and we will thus
> plan to end at noon on Wed.
>
> [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Sep/0004.html
> (members only)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 6. New Issues
> Philippe points out a couple of public comments on the public comments
> list [13]. What process do we want to follow (pre-last-call)
> to respond
> to these comments and make sure real ones appear on our issues list?
>
> [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 7. SOAP TF Status? Need more meetings? Is [15] the output?
> Conclusions so far:
> (1) We need to be able to express MEPs in the SOAP binding.
> (2) The ability to describe features and MEPs at the abstract level
> would be a good thing, but right now we don't know how
> much effort
> it would take to do so.
> (3) Feedback to XMLP WG: lack of something (such as a header) to
> express the MEP in use. (Glen: perhaps we should say that, for
> each binding, there must be a way to identify unambiguously the
> MEP in use; of course, for bindings that support just one MEP
> that's a no-op).
> (4) Currently, there is no well-defined one-way MEP.
>
> [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0034.html
>
> This topic was deferred last time. Is there anything more we
> need to do
> here?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 8. Proposal: Hoisting SOAP binding attributes [16].
> Roberto's amendment
> at [17].
>
> [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0058.html
> [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0105.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 9. Issue 51: Asymmetry between soap:body and soap:header [18]. Thread
> starts at [19] (Kevin), continues at [20] and [21].
>
> [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x51
> [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0048.html
> [20]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0049.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0081.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Issue 25: Interaction between W3C XML Schema and SOAP Data Model
Gudge's explains at [22], Roberto's options at [23].
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0186.html
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0071.html
FTF?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Issue 5: EncodingStyle
Issue 30: soap:body encodingStyle
Dietmar's soaptf proposal for encoding and use attributes. [24]
Arthur's recommendations. [25, 26]
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Jul/0016.html
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0178.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0178.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Issue 18: Default for transport of <soap:binding> [27]. Jeffrey's
proposal at [28].
[27]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#
x18
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0122.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
13. HTTP Binding Issues (6a, 41)
Jeffrey recommends no change [29].
Sanjiva is mulling this over [30].
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0067.html
- Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 21:03:32 UTC