Re: Proposal for clarifying relationship between SOAP modules and features

+1 for having a clear story on the URI to name features and modules.

Jean-Jacques.

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> I like this on the whole, but I have a couple of questions about where 
> we're headed:
> 
> * In JJM's other note he reiterates that a module can either refer to a 
> separate feature, or implicitly define the feature inline with the module 
> spec.  Fine, but what concerns me is that we need a clean story on the URI 
> naming of these thinkgs: 
> 
> - I very much want it to be the case that: every feature, regardless of 
> whether defined separately or in a module spec, is to be named by a URI. 
> This is very important so that WSDL can evolve in a direction of defining 
> services that are supported iff the binding used supports some set of 
> features (typically not modules, as it is often the business of the 
> binding to decide whether to use a module or some other means to implement 
> the feature.)
> 
> - I am neutral on whether modules should also be named with URIs, but I do 
> want the rec to be clear.  If the answer is yes, then we need to be clear 
> that a module that defines its own feature inline in its spec MUST provide 
> URIs to name each, and perhaps provide some guidance as to whether these 
> should in general be different or may be the same URI.

Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 12:15:35 UTC