W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

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

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:39:46 -0700
Message-ID: <40ED78D2.4060005@oracle.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>"Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> writes:
>>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)
>I'm afraid I don't understand this paragraph either. What fragment
>IDs are you talking about?

There is a way to indicate the operations by using fragment ids by using 
XPath definition we specify in Section C.2 of the WSDL spec.
I proposed that the value of the property is to be the fragment 
identifier of the operation, because this is inambiguous as the value 
will be the same regardless of the extension/feature engaged. The 
fragment identified defn includes the interface and the operation 
together and we don't have to invent new syntax.


Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 12:40:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:42 UTC