RE: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping

Sanjiva
 
it's the mecahnical move from WSDL 1.1 to 2.0 sounds interesting.
i think this is important enough for us to work on here.
 
either a primer section or a separate note sound good to me and i'd 
very much like to be involved at some level since we have a large 
number of existing services which i'd like to migrate - some are BP 
compliant, many others actually interoperate with toolkits ;-)
 
Paul

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
 Sent: Tue 23/03/2004 01:37 
 To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C; ryman@ca.ibm.com 
 Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
 Subject: Re: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping
 
 

 There is already a non-normative, but rather empty, appendix
 on this topic. I intend to work on it sometime in the future .. I agree
 that indicating how to go from WSDL 1.1 to 2.0 is crucial.
 
 Furthermore, I'd like to write a separate document (to be published
 as a note if the WG wishes to or I can publish it on IBM developerWorks
 say) which defines a WSDL 2.0 compatible profile of WSDL 1.1. I'm
 certain that can be written as a subset of the BP 1.0 profile of WSDL 1.1.
 If that can be achieved then we should be encouraging people to stay
 within that profile so that moving up to WSDL 2.0 becomes mechanical.
 (I intend to write an XSLT transformation for that profile; interested
 parties
 can easily extend that profile for greater WSDL 1.1 coverage.)
 
 Sanjiva.
 
 ----- Original Message -----
 From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
 To: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
 Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:40 AM
 Subject: RE: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping
 
 
 > Hmm ..thanks!
 >
 > I guess it won't be a good fit going WSDL 2.0 to 1.1, but then documenting
 what's
 > different is going to be very useful info.
 >
 > Our biggest concern is in migrating our existing services, WSDL 1.1 to 2.0
 and i'm
 > prepared to accept that might not be a good fit either - you mention SOAP
 encoding
 > and i immediately thought of operator overloading and i guess there are
 going to be
 > a metric tonne of other issues.
 >
 > I don't want to bog the WG with a load more to think about, but given this
 is something
 > i'm sure i'm not alone in having to think about, I'd ideally like the
 backing and support
 > of this WG.
 >
 > This might provide a good validation for our spec as well as providing a
 good source
 > of lots of existing real-world test cases!
 >
 > Paul
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
 > Sent: Mon 22/03/2004 18:51
 > To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
 > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
 > Subject: Re: WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping
 >
 >
 >
 > Paul,
 >
 > There are things in WSDL 2.0 that cannot be expressed in WSDL 1.1, e.g.
 interface inheritance. However, it is probably feasible to imbed WSDL 1.1
 into WSDL 2.0, although you may have to invent some extensions (e.g. for
 SOAP encoding).
 >
 > Arthur Ryman,
 > Rational Desktop Tools Development
 >
 > phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
 > assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
 > fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
 > mobile: +1-416-939-5063
 > intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/

 >
 >
 >
 > <paul.downey@bt.com>
 > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
 >
 > 03/22/2004 11:23 AM
 >
 > To
 > <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
 > cc
 > Subject
 > WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 mapping
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > one of the more difficult questions i'm being asked at the moment
 > is how we will migrate from our WSDL 1.1 documents into WSDL 2.0
 > when it arrives.
 >
 > This task would be vastly simplified if there was a standard mapping
 > between the two languages, with an indication of which WSDL 1.1 features
 > cannot be expressed in WSDL 1.1 and vice-versa.
 >
 > Given we now have a nice component model for WSDL 2.0, is it feasible
 > to provided WSDL 1.1 serialisation and deserialisation for WSDL 2.0 ?
 > If so, could this be written up as a W3C note under this WG ?
 >
 > Paul
 >
 > --
 > Paul Sumner Downey
 > Web Services Integration
 > BT Exact
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 03:39:40 UTC