RE: What WSDL defines - the diagram!

I think the WSDL 2.0 spec does define certain things that a WSDL
processor MUST do. For example, check that no duplicate definitions
exist.

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: 06 November 2003 06:51
> To: Anne Thomas Manes; Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; paul.downey@bt.com
> Subject: Re: What WSDL defines - the diagram!
> 
> 
> P.S. The greater significance of the diagram is not so much 
> in what it includes but what it omits.  In particular, it 
> says nothing about what a WSDL *processor* must or must not do.
> 
> There are different types of interoperability that we could 
> potentially strive to obtain with the WSDL 2.0 spec, which 
> I'll arbitrarily call:
> 
> Type 1: Web Service & Client interop.  This type of interop 
> is to ensure that the WS and client agree on the mechanics of 
> their interaction -- the message formats, data types, 
> transport, MEP, etc.  (Of course, they still need to use 
> other means to ensure that they agree on the semantics and 
> other higher-level details of the interaction -- beyond what 
> WSDL covers.)
> 
> Type 2: WSDL Processor interop.  This type of interop would 
> ensure that different WSDL processors would have the same 
> behavior when presented with a given WSD.
> 
> WSDL 2.0 pursues type 1: Web Service & Client interop.  It 
> does not define what a WSDL processor must or must not do 
> with a given WSD.  (And rightly so, in my opinion: what a 
> processor *does* with a given WSD is its own business -- not ours.)
> 
> 
> At 01:10 PM 11/5/2003 -0500, David Booth wrote:
> 
> >Mark & Anne,
> >
> >Certainly, a WSDL document does not *fully* define client or service 
> >behavior, but it does *partially* define their behavior.  
> That's what 
> >MEPs are all about.  When a WSDL document specifies a 
> message exchange 
> >pattern, that pattern partially defines the behavior of the 
> interacting 
> >parties -- not their internal behavior, but their externally 
> observable 
> >behavior, i.e., what messages they send and receive and in 
> what sequence.
> >
> >The labels on the diagram were somewhat abbreviated, and omitted the 
> >word "partially".  A clearer diagram is at 
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Nov/0002.html
> >
> >
> >At 01:34 PM 11/4/2003 -0500, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> >
> >>+1.
> >>
> >>WSDL explicitly does not define client or service behaviour. It 
> >>describes syntax of messages and protocols used to exchange 
> those messages.
> >>
> >>Anne
> >>
> >>At 10:41 AM 11/4/2003, Mark Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>>Cool, thanks for tackling that at the f2f.
> >>>
> >>>But I disagree with the diagram.  As it was explained to 
> me, a WSDL 
> >>>2.0 document could be said to "describe the syntax" of client and 
> >>>service ("schema in, schema out"), rather than "define the 
> >>>behaviour", which would require defining what in/out means in 
> >>>relation to any requested semantics (aka the protocol).
> >>>
> >>>WSDL 1.1 describes the protocol in that it suggests that a 
> successful 
> >>>response to a message means that the requested operation in the 
> >>>message was successfully invoked.  WSDL 2.0 is ambiguous.
> >>>
> >>>Mark.
> >>>--
> >>>Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        
> http://www.markbaker.ca
> >
> >--
> >David Booth
> >W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> >Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 13:38:10 UTC