Re: What WSDL defines - the diagram!

I agree with Gudge, but I thought the current wording of the
spec in component-model-speak rather than document-speak
achieves precisely this. If not can we not add more conditions
about the component model without talking about a processing
model?

I'm not strictly opposed to adding a processing model, but
extending the current approach seems workable to me.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>; "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>;
"Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>; "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; <paul.downey@bt.com>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:11 PM
Subject: 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 10:26:43 UTC