RE: What WSDL defines - the diagram!

It's not about a 'document'. It's about a set of WSDL components. You
can't tell by looking at a single document whether it violates the
unique definitions rule. You have to follow imports to do that, which is
something only a WSDL processor can do ( whether that processor is
implemented in wetware, XSLT, Java or whatever ).

So, I disagree that our job is only to state what it means to be a WSDL
document. We do need to state that. But we also need to state what it
mean to be a valid set of WSDL components. Note that the distinction
here is EXACTLY the same as that between a schema document and a schema.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] 
> Sent: 07 November 2003 08:57
> To: Martin Gudgin; Anne Thomas Manes; Mark Baker; Glen Daniels
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; paul.downey@bt.com
> Subject: RE: What WSDL defines - the diagram!
> 
> No, whether or not there are duplicate definitions is a 
> property of the WSDL document -- not a question of what a 
> WSDL processor does with it.  The
> *document* is erroneous (or non-conformant) if it contains 
> duplicate definitions.
> 
> WSDL processors might do many things.  We cannot make 
> assumptions about what they may wish to do, nor should we try 
> to restrict what they might do.  That's their business, not 
> ours.  Our business is to define: (a) what constitutes a 
> conformant WSDL document; and (b) what that document means.
> 
> At 10:38 AM 11/6/2003 -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >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
> > >
> > >
> 
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 
>

Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 05:11:54 UTC