Re: Basic Profile

Josh,

The WS-I Basic Profile defines a set of constraints to SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1, 
and UDDI 2.0 that clarifies a number of ambiguities and fixes a number of 
errors and contradictions in the original specifications. These constraints 
also limit the number of options supplied in the specifications that make 
interoperability more challenging.

These constraints conform with WSDL 1.1.

When using RPC style messages, you don't explicitly define the parameter 
elements -- you only define the types. The SOAP runtime system dynamically 
generates the element definitions. The SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 specifications 
do not specify what namespace these *elements* should belong to. Hence the 
WS-I BP clarifies this point. (no namespace)

Any child elements of these parameter elements are explicitly defined 
within a namespace, thus R2737 stipulates that these elements must be 
properly namespace qualified per the schema definition.

Anne

At 01:38 AM 2/8/2004, Joshua Boverhof wrote:

>An effort called BP-1.0 has come to my attention, and they are proposing to
>handle WSDL-1.1 rpc/literal messages like so:
>
>http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.htm#R2735
>
>R2735 A MESSAGE described with an rpc-literal binding MUST place the *part 
>accessor elements for parameters and return value in no namespace*.
>
>R2737 A MESSAGE described with an rpc-literal binding MUST namespace 
>qualify the children of part accessor elements for the parameters and the 
>return value with the targetNamespace in which their types are defined.
>
>
>Is this in conformance with WSDL-1.1, or the intent?  I think of the part 
>as just providing a
>name to the type, and thus I assumed the namespace would be that of the type.
>
>
>thanks,
>-josh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anne Thomas Manes
VP & Research Director
Burton Group

Received on Sunday, 8 February 2004 12:03:07 UTC