- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:39:37 -0400
- To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>,
- Cc: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
At 02:30 PM 7/7/2004 -0700, Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote: >WSDL 2.0 should not require identifying the operation name because doing >so will unnecessarily limit the applicability of WSDL 2.0. Can you give an example? >R114 mandates that the WSD language define a way to uniquely map, but it >does not mandate that each WSDL document must uniquely map. The current wording of R114 is indeed ambiguous ("R114: The description language MUST allow unambiguously mapping any on-the-wire Message to an Operation."). It isn't clear whether the "MUST allow" verb applies to the _mapping_ or the _writer_of_a_WSDL_document_, i.e., whether it MUST allow any message to be mapped to an operation (this would be the stronger interpretation), or whether it MUST allow a WSDL document to be written such that any message can be mapped to an operation (this would be the weaker interpretation). Also, the wording of this requirement somehow changed (weakened) after the WG agreed to it on 4 April 2002, though I can't find anything in the minutes to justify the change. (Here is the chronology that I found: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jul/0021.html ) However, I think the precise wording of R114 is somewhat irrelevant. The real question is what does the WG think we need. Jeffrey, are you suggesting that you think Scenario X ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0300.html ) is an acceptable situation and is not a interoperability problem that we need to solve? >The RPC style (http://www.w3.org/2004/03/wsdl/style/rpc) defines a way >to uniquely map and therefore satisfies R114. Nothing else is needed. Again, that depends on your interpretation of R114. Unique GEDs also provide a way to uniquely map. Personally, I think the weak interpretation of R114 would render R114 somewhat pointless, because the author of a WSD can always simply write the WSD to use unique GEDs -- nothing special is needed in the WSDL 2.0 spec to facilitate this. -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 12:39:40 UTC