Action item: specifying negotiation process as a wsdl.

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Hi

At the f2f people asked me how much work it would be to convert the wire
formats of negotiation to wsdl.

In terms of BPSS instance work, it would probably best be deferred until
BPSS has support for wsdl defined processes. Currently an
"OperationActivity" element is proposed and under discussion. 

In terms of CPPA work, the 2.x CPPA (with extensions for WSDL and other
things) could be used to specify the services.

In terms of Negotiation schema work (NDD plus NegotiationMessage), a
quick solution is sketched in the schema attached to this message. [See
also the wsdl:type with the same info.]

In terms of WSDL work, a quick solution is sketched in the wsdl attached
to this message.

So, overall there is not too much work that would be needed to fully
support a WS described wire format.

Nevertheless, we could defer the CPPA and BPSS work, roll-up the payload
into a single SOAP:body, and include the wsdl in a short amount of time
IMO.

The wsdl has a lot of namespaces that you will certainly need to change
schemaLocations for.
If you are at that level of investigation and run into trouble, send me
a message and I can send the exact files (for CPPA, NDD, and
NegotiationMsg that I used in this illustration).

There is about half of an afternoon's work in the above examples. So
they are by no means finished. 
Some incomplete areas:
1. Should we define faults for any operations in the service?
2. Should request-response patterns be defined for some operations?
Which ones? [All the current operations are "one-way" MEPs.]
3. Should we try to break out messages into distinct specializations of
an underlying type? [I just used one schema for the SOAP:body uniformly
in this discussion approach.]

Dale Moberg

NegotiationService.xsd

NegotiationService.wsdl