- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:59:18 -0400
- To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>, <hadley@sun.com>
- Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Asir: > > I just reread the text you point to, and I do think we could > > profitably add some text which describes the fact that Features in > > fact are typically resolved/ implemented by bindings or > Modules, and > > that Modules can satisfy abstract Feature requirements. I > think this > > might help with Marc's concern as well, without going so far as to > > generate a syntactic connection between the two. I'll volunteer to > > write this (i.e. switch my ACTION from writing this email > to writing > > some resolution text :)). > > I am assuming that this new text will span all three parts of > the spec. I am looking forward to read it. I think it's really just in part 1, as it's just information and guidelines. > "By virtue of the fact that you understand the SOAP Module > URI, you understand which, if any, abstract features the > module implements." > > You are making an assumption that the SOAP Module spec author: > > - will specify an URI for a WSDL Abstract Feature > - will declare the WSDL Abstract Feature that their SOAP > Module realizes > > If so, I expect the WSDL spec to stipulate these requirements > for SOAP Module spec authors. Right? No, I'm not making those assumptions at all. Module authors MUST give a name (a URI) to their Modules. That's all. They MAY also decide to indicate in the Module spec that certain abstract Features are implemented by this Module, but they don't have to. --Glen
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 14:59:28 UTC