RE: Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute

+1 to gudge's point.  That's certainly my recollection of the ws-i meetings
and main issue around encoding.  

I wouldn't have a problem with wsdl not supporting soap encoding.  But then
I didn't have a problem with soap 1.2 not supporting encoding ;-)

cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 1:19 PM
> To: Anne Thomas Manes; Jacek Kopecky; ryman@ca.ibm.com
> Cc: WS Description WG
> Subject: RE: Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute
> 
> 
> 
> Anne, 
> 
> I don't think reducing scope was the main reason. A awful lot 
> of interop
> problems are attributable to SOAP Encoding in SOAP 1.1 and/or
> use='encoded' in WSDL 1.1
> 
> The WS-I BP WG was satisfied that use='encoded' was 
> unnecessary. And we
> are not just making a recommendation that you SHOULD say 
> use='literal',
> we are saying you MUST say use='literal'.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net] 
> > Sent: 19 September 2002 06:31
> > To: Jacek Kopecky; ryman@ca.ibm.com
> > Cc: WS Description WG
> > Subject: RE: Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> 
> Attribute
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > One more point:
> > 
> > WS-I has chosen to not include Encoded in the Basic profile. 
> > That isn't quite the same thing as saying that they have made 
> > the recommendation to use only Literal. This was a hefty 
> > topic of debate, and one of the primary reasons why they 
> > decided not to include Encoded was to reduce the scope of the 
> > Basic profile.
> > 
> > Anne
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:07 AM
> > > To: ryman@ca.ibm.com
> > > Cc: WS Description WG
> > > Subject: Re: Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> 
> > Attribute
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Arthur,
> > >  just two points:
> > >
> > >  1. By constraining oneself to XML Schema as the abstract 
> > type system, 
> > > one constrains oneself to the tree data model inherent in 
> > XML Schema, 
> > > other data models being out of reach (describing other data 
> > models in 
> > > XML Schema is at best a kludge). For example - what if I want to 
> > > transfer some specific RDF data in a service? How do I 
> describe the 
> > > service using only XML Schema?  It is true that the real 
> > > representation need not be XML, but this is an orthogonal topic.
> > >
> > >  2. WS-I doesn't seem to support SOAP Encoding in their 
> activities, 
> > > and if I understand you correctly, they are in fact 
> > creating their own 
> > > graph encoding. It is understandable for them, but I don't 
> > think it is 
> > > possible for WSDL 1.2 not to support SOAP Encoding 
> properly, since 
> > > SOAP Encoding is part of SOAP 1.2 - the product of a peer 
> > W3C Working 
> > > Group - and the WS-Desc WG has sent no comments against 
> > SOAP Encoding 
> > > in the Last Call phase.
> > >
> > >                    Jacek Kopecky
> > >
> > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
> > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 19:35, ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jacek,
> > > >
> > > > I think it's useful to seperate the discussion into two parts:
> > > >
> > > > 1) abstract (binding neutral) definition of messages in WSDL
> > > > 2) format of messages in the SOAP binding
> > > >
> > > > Concerning 1) I am in favour of just using XML schema. In fact, 
> > > > there is also discussion that the <message> element be 
> > removed and 
> > > > that
> > > messages be
> > > > directly defined using schema, i.e. without <part>s. Allowing 
> > > > different schema languages is a step in the opposite direction.
> > > >
> > > > Concerning 2) the WS-I.org recommendation is to just 
> use literal. 
> > > > Also, WS-I.org is working on an algorithm to encode 
> > graphs in a way
> > > that can be
> > > > described using a literal schema. So if the concrete message
> > > format is XML,
> > > > then I see little benefit in allowing the concrete schema to be
> > > different
> > > > than the abstract schema. However, there are important 
> > cases where 
> > > > the concrete message format is not XML. For example, in 
> > HTTP GET the 
> > > > input parameters are url encoded. (e.g. the input gets 
> encoded as
> > > symbol=IBM and
> > > > not as <symbol>IBM</symbol>). Also, if the message 
> > includes binary 
> > > > resources, then we can describe them abstractly as some 
> > restriction 
> > > > of xsd:hexBinary, but the concrete message format could 
> be a MIME
> > > type such as
> > > > image/jpeg using SOAP with attachments.
> > > >
> > > > To summarize:
> > > > - First, we should view the message definition as 
> > abstract and use 
> > > > XML Schema as the abstract data type language. This 
> establishes a 
> > > > proper layering in WSDL by isolating the message 
> > definition from the 
> > > > bindings. -Second, we should define the concrete message 
> > format in 
> > > > the binding. -Third, evidence from WS-I.org tells us 
> that for the 
> > > > SOAP
> > > binding, we can
> > > > live with literal only for concrete XML messages.
> > > > -Fourth, using literal only doesn't mean that the 
> > abstract message 
> > > > definition is always concrete since there are other important 
> > > > non-XML formats such as url encoding and MIME.
> > > >
> > > > Arthur Ryman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >                       Jacek Kopecky
> > >
> > >
> > > >                       <jacek@systinet.c        To:       Arthur
> > > Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> > >
> > > >                       om>                      cc:       WS
> > > Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > >
> > > >                                                Subject:  Re:
> > > Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute
> > >
> > > >                       09/18/2002 12:11
> > >
> > >
> > > >                       PM
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Arhur,
> > > >  if you want an abstract schema at the wsdl:message 
> > level, that's OK 
> > > > with me and it's understandable. On the other hand, if 
> > you want to 
> > > > remove the use attribute by saying that "literal XML 
> > Schema" is the 
> > > > only possible way in SOAP, I disagree because that either 
> > results in 
> > > > ugly
> > > > *and* ambiguous data structure schemata or in disallowing 
> > other data
> > > > models altogether (with SOAP Data Model among them).
> > > >  I think that especially because the parts of 
> > wsdl:message should be
> > > > described abstractly, we may need different data models 
> > right here,
> > > > otherwise we'll say that, abstractly, WSDL only describes 
> > services that
> > > > can transfer trees with very raw untyped references.
> > > >  So, either let's keep use="encoded" or let's allow 
> > different schema
> > > > languages (other than XML Schema), and I prefer the 
> > latter because it
> > > > agrees with the requirement "abstract description of 
> wsdl:message
> > > > parts".
> > > >  Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >                    Jacek Kopecky
> > > >
> > > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
> > > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
>