WSDL2.0 Last Call comments

Dear Jonathan,

I am writing to you on behalf of the W3C Choreography Working Group. As 
promised we have reviewed the WSDL2.0
documents at our Face to Face meeting. Our comments and requirements 
are as follows:

1. We would like to see the Web Services Description Working Group 
define bindings for the 4 remaining MEPs for which
     no bindings have been defined or we would like them removed from 
the specification.

2. WSDL2.0 is unclear about it's support for attachment technologies 
and this is a concern to us. We would like to see
     some clarity with respect to what and how attachment technologies 
will be supported. We have spent some time looking
     at the WS-I AP1.0 profile  as an exemplar and would greatly 
appreciate clarity on what you intend to support and how it
     might differ from AP1.0.

3. We recommend that a section is added describing the differences 
between WSDL1.0 and WSDL2.0. This should
     include differences in MEP's between the two specifications.

4. We seek clarification in the text of WSDL2.0 as to the use of 
wsdlLocation.

5. We seek clarification in the text of WSDL 2.0 for component-to-XML 
InfoSet mapping, to address issues such as how
      serialization is performed in a manner compatible with XML Schema.

6. As we indicated in a previous letter to you [url] we are pleased to 
see the presence of F&P and intend to use this in our
     work.

7. We noted that the previous composistors work within WSD WG has not 
made it into the last call document, and similar
     to point 6, this is a capability that we need and would use if it 
were present.

I you have any questions or wish to seek clarification from the Web 
Services Choreography WG please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Best of luck in your endeavours.

Kind Regards

Steve Ross-Talbot
co-Chair W3C Web Services Choreography

C: +44 7855 268 848
H: +44 1273 491841
www.enigmatec.net

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2004 09:02:51 UTC