RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

OK, I didn't (and still don't) understand the last paragraph.

But I suppose we'd also want to define how SOAPaction fulfils the abstract feature, right?  Can you write down what the whole proposal is?  I'm having trouble distinguishing where you think this proposal differs from your original OperationName proposal [1].  I don't want to repeat that bit of contention.

From: Umit Yalcinalp [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:18 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: WS Description List
Subject: Re: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

Jonathan Marsh wrote:


As I understand your proposal, it requires either the rpc style to be
engaged, or a mandatory extension to be present.  That is, plain
unextended WSDL (as WS-I might profile for instance) must always follow
the rpc style.  Doesn't that seem a bit drastic? 

Nope, that is not the intent. Please see the last paragraph. It is not rpc or mandatory extension.I acknowledged that there are additional rules we can write down before resorting to extensibility mechanisms.  I did not have time to express them with appropriate speceze.

 A WSDL that has unique
operation names, but violates some aspect of rpc style unrelated to
operation dispatch would not be conformant.
Do you mean unique GEDs instead of unique operation names? The issue is the uniqueness of the messages. 

With an additional bullet item such as 

-- the messages of all interface operation components in a particular direction for a specific interface component must be unique, i.e. they must have distinct GEDs. 

With appropriate rewording applied, would this be acceptable? If there are additional rules like this, the better. 

My point is if all fails, there MUST be a mandatory extension which provides the functionality for the abstract feature. 

Hope that is clear. 


Your complete proposal follows (for those who find the attachment

OperationName Feature: 

This specification defines an OperationName as an abstract Feature
that is required for all WSDL documents.  OperationName Feature is
identified with the URI value:

This Feature is assumed to be always present in the component model
and applicable for an interface operation component (See Section Composition Model). Therefore, it is not required to be
declared in a WSDL document, but MUST always be supported. 

[Note: For sake of completeness, I propose that we identify
this feature with a URI although it will not exhibit itself in a WSDL

The OperationName Feature requires the operation name to be
identifiable in a message exchange and thus be conveyed between the
requestor agent and the provider agent. Since there may be multiple
mechanisms that may implement this abstract Feature, such as other
features, binding mechanisms (i.e.  a SOAP module) or existing
extensibility mechanisms this specification does not mandate a
specific implementation. However, one the following conditions must be
met to satisfy the OperationName feature:

(1) an interface operation component must have a {style} property that
has the URI value

(2) WSDL document MUST contain a mandatory extension (see Section 8.3
Processor Conformance for the definition of a mandatory extension)
that satisfy and implement the OperationName feature. The mandatory
extension MUST be in use in a scope that contains interface operation
component (see Section Composition Model)

[Note: I believe that it is also possible to restrict the previous
definition to binding and binding operation scopes only. I can go
either way]

This feature also defines an abstract property that holds the URI of
the name of the operation. The URI of the property is 

Since there are different ways to implement the abstract OperationName
feature as stated above, this specification requires a unique means of
identifying the operation name via the Property value. The value MUST
be the fragment identifier that signifies the specific operation
engaged and MUST be made available in an interaction. (See Section C.2
Fragment Identifiers)

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Behalf Of Umit Yalcinalp
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:14 PM
To: WS Description List
Subject: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114


Below please find my action item completed. (I did not want to receive
friendly reminders from Jonathan every day during 4th of July ;-)).

Here is my position on the thread started with David [1]. The
I was trying to answer and my position wrt those are:

(1) should WSDL require identifying the operation name? (yes)
(2) should WSDL enable identifying the specific mechanism that makes
operation name known? (yes)
(3) should WSDL provide a way to operation name regardless of the
mechanism employed? (yes)
(4) should WSDL define the mechanism of implementation? (no)

This proposal addresses 1, 2 and 3 as an addition to Part 1. My
proposals addressed all
of the above (see [2] and [3]) in the past and there are similar
elements in my current proposal, but given that there are different
to do (4) and we will never agree on it, at least I am hoping that we
agree that we should at least be able to agree to identify them in a
WSDL document.
In essence, the proposal below is in the spirit of Hugo's email [4],
also requires that all extensibility mechanisms to be declared in
If there are "friendly"  amendements or spec-eze improvements, please
send them. I realize that there may be additional rules one may be
to formulate for satisfying the OperationName feature other than those
stated, but this will not break the intention of the proposal, namely
WSDL is the contract and all dependencies must be declared.



Umit Yalcinalp
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 650 607 6154



Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          

Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 19:26:05 UTC