- From: FABLET Youenn <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:24:29 +0200
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
I am a little bit confused by the serviceGroup debate now that we only
want to group services (possibly with an attribute @serviceGroup)
without defining more specifically any relationship between them.
Service elements can already be grouped through the definitions element
or via the targetNamespace. I am not sure to clearly see the differences
between these means of grouping and the newly @serviceGroup proposed
one. Can someone recap why we shouldn't use the definitions element
(static case) or targetNamespace (dynamic case) ?
Clealry WSDL allows to separate services/instances elements definitions
from interfaces/classes definitions.
I believe that in most cases, the owner of the services instances is
also the owner of the targetNamespace uris and definitions element
containing those instances. It could be part of a best practice
guidelines to create definitions elements or targetNamespaces containing
only services elements if services grouping semantics are needed...
Youenn
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 04:24:59 UTC