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

RE: Sample Application described in WSDL using HTTP binding and showing messages

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:05:27 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF081A5C7B@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

This is one area that is troubling me a lot.  The areas that I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around, and collectively are issue 189:
- The difference between requesting a specific entity versus searching for entities that match specified criteria, ie getThing versus QueryForThings
- How to specify CRUD methods on properties of resources, ie the Artist things.  
- How to model identifiers - URIs, ID, name, href - all seem muddled together.  I tried to show 2 cases, where there was an ID element that the wsdl binding said could be used to generate URIs (client generated URIs) and case where the server generated the URI (opaque URIs).  However, it most cases IDs are attribute, and names/href attributes are often used.
- How to model Qnames - it's all well and good if things are in same ns, but then they get hairy if there's multiple ns.
- How to simply(!) extend a schema and have the URI space that is defined by the schema + location tags automagically be updated.
- How to describe the situation where part of the message is in the URI and all of it is in the body, specifically a PUT.
- How to specify a NodeList versus a typed Node, ie does GetArtistList return <Music><Artist> or <NodeList><Artist>?  
- How deep in the tree does this go?  Imagine Artists have Albums, and I find Albums that were made in 1994.  Does that return <Muscic><Artist><Album> or <NodeList><Album>*
- You'll notice the explosion of schemas and operations that are needed because of the binding.  I think this kind of sucks and comes close to making the http binding useless as it stands.  

These are the kinds of things that I'm confused about modelling, and I realized I need to set things straight on how the current binding works.  Once we've gotten to common understanding, then I think we can see where the weak spots are.  But I don't really want to make any additional proposals until I'm certain about the current state.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 8:08 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Sample Application described in WSDL using HTTP 
> binding and
> showing messages
> This looks really good, Dave.  But I have one important question for
> you ...
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:11:43PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <wsdl:definitions xmlns:musicw="http://example.com/Artist" 
> xmlns:wsdl="">
> > 	<xs:import href="Music-Artist.xsd"/>
> > 	<wsdl:interface name="Artist">
> > 		<wsdl:operation name="ArtistSearch" method="GET">
> What do we say that the operation is, "ArtistSearch", or "GET".  i.e.
> when an HTTP 200 response arrives as a result of an "ArtistSearch"
> action, the server would normally (in the CDDB case, at least) be
> responding to the "GET" request and have no idea that an 
> "ArtistSearch"
> was being explicitly requested.
> FWIW, you answered[1] this same question a few weeks ago 
> (though not to
> my liking 8-), but I wonder if hanging out on rest-discuss has changed
> your mind at all. 8-)
>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0045.html
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 01:05:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:41 UTC