Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component

Hi Gurus,
A good way to capture the valid semantics [and cross field validations] of
WSDL components would be to define inline schematrons witin the annotations
for the WSDL Schema, if time permits.
http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl/wsdl20.xsd
Would that be possible, or is planned in the near future ?
Or maybe I can volunteer for this :-)

rgds,
Ram

On 5/30/06, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>   FTR, I recorded these questions as CR047, CR048, and CR049.
>
>
>
> I also don't see anything conceptually broken with a service that points
> to an interface which, even after inheritance, doesn't contain any
> operations.  Not terribly useful, but there are many similarly useless ways
> to use WSDL.
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html?view=normal#CR047
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ramkumar Menon
> *Sent:* Monday, May 29, 2006 10:21 PM
> *To:* Rogers, Tony
> *Cc:* Arthur Ryman; www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component
>
>
>
> Thanks Tony, Arthur. That clarifies things a lot.
>
> regards,
>
> Ram
>
>
>
> On 5/29/06, *Rogers, Tony* <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote:
>
> As far as the bindings referenced by endpoints, no, these need not refer
> to interfaces. If you read about "reusable" bindings in the Primer you'll
> see that there's a good case for using bindings that do not refer to
> interfaces - that's what Arthur was referring to by "generic" bindings.
>
>
>
> Tony Rogers
>
> CA, Inc
>
> Senior Architect, Development
>
> tony.rogers@ca.com
>
> co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
>
> co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Ramkumar Menon
> *Sent:* Tue 30-May-06 13:41
> *To:* Arthur Ryman
> *Cc:* www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component
>
>
>
> Hi Arthur,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation.
>
> Maybe I was not clear in my question (1) .
>
> I was explicitly referring to the "interface" attribute on the <service>
> nodes. Woudnt the interfaces that are referred to as attributes on the
> <service> nodes need to have atleast one operation within them, either
> declared / inherited ? Would it make sense to explicitly state this in the
> spec ?
>
> Similarly, for the second question, I was referring to those bindings that
> are referred to from within the <endpoint> node as an attribute - wdnt these
> referred bindings need to be referring to an interface mandatorily ? Again,
> if it makes sense, would it better if we explicitly state ithis in the spec
> ?
>
>
>
> I would also appreciate your thoughts on point (3).
>
>
>
> Thanks again!
>
>
>
> rgds,
>
> Ram
>
>
>
> On 5/29/06, *Arthur Ryman* <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ram,
>
> It might be useful to have an interface that just defined faults, so -1 to
> requiring one or more operations.
>
> An endpoint refers to a single binding. If the binding refers to an
> interface, it must be the same as the service's interface. Note that generic
> "interfaceless" bindings are possible.
>
> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> 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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
>
>   *"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com >*
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
> 05/23/2006 02:36 PM
>
> To
>
> www-ws-desc@w3.org
>
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
>
> "interface" attribute info item on service component
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Three fundamental questions.
>
> Would it be useful to add a clause for the <service> component stating
> The "interface" attribute information item should point to an
> interface that has non zero number of "operation" element information
> items within it.
> If not, we cd as well have service components that could possible be
> empty, and allow them to extend other service components, reflecting
> the same semantics we have defined for interface inheritance -
> considering that one service component is related to exactly one
> interface.
>
> Am I right if I state that if all "binding" attribute info items that
> had been defined on the endpoint node should have been associated with
> an  "interface" attribute information item? What does it mean to be
> otherwise ?
>
> Moreover, if the service component has an interface attribute info
> item that extends from two other interfaces, can the endpoint defined
> within it refer to bindings that were defined for the parent
> interfaces ? If yes/no, should this be reflected in the core language
> spec ?
>
> rgds,
> Ram
> --
> Shift to the left, shift to the right!
> Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
>
> -Ramkumar Menon
> A typical Macroprocessor
>
>
>
>
> --
> Shift to the left, shift to the right!
> Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
>
> -Ramkumar Menon
> A typical Macroprocessor
>
>
>
>
> --
> Shift to the left, shift to the right!
> Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
>
> -Ramkumar Menon
> A typical Macroprocessor
>



-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor