RE: [soa-rm-ra] Reverse engineering WSDL a bad idea

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

I reverse engineered WSDL once...and all I got was LDSW.

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Associate

Booz | Allen | Hamilton
______________________--

700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:36 PM
To: Jeffrey A. Estefan; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Reverse engineering WSDL a bad idea

XML Infoset is the abstract data model behind XML.  There are 11 items
defined that make up XML 1.0.  Only 6 are allowed in most WS protocols
such as SOAP.  I haven't looked at WSDL and what they use.

It is far too abstract for us and also not relevant since it describes
the data model items, not specific data items.  (example - element,
attribute, PI, comment, namespace  etc.)

What would be a great idea is to study the abstract model for
WS-Security and WS-Policy to see what items they work with.  I feel this
abstraction is where the RA can meet the protocols halfway.

Duane

On 10/11/06 2:32 PM, "Jeffrey A. Estefan"
<jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
wrote:

> RA Team,
> 
> I heard a lot of talk this morning about the potential to reuse what 
> industry has developed in terms of SOA-implementation standards, for 
> example WSDL and the WSDL data model  (1.x, 2.0, or otherwise) as a 
> possible means to model the Service Description (SD) of the RA.  Isn't
that an XML Infoset?
> Frankly, I think that is a bad idea.  What industry is lacking is a 
> technology inert reference architecture.  We all know SOA is not new 
> and that XML-based Web services have been buzzing for the past few 
> years.  In the not too distant past, we had OMG CORBA IDL and 
> Microsoft IDL as an example of an implementation language neutral
service description model.
> Today, XML-based WSDL is arguable the most popular 
> implementation-language neutral way to document service 
> descriptions/service contracts, but who knows what's going to take its

> place tomorrow.  We should just as easily be able to map CORBA IDL or 
> Microsoft IDL SD onto our RA SD as we can a W3C WSDL SD or a Java
Interface SD.
> 
> The RM provides the basic skeletal structure for us and we should 
> start our modeling activities from the RM as a basis and start putting

> some "meat on the bones."  After a first iteration, we should conduct 
> a test to see if, to first order, we can map a set of 
> technology-specific SDs such as WSDL, IDL, Java Interface, etc. onto 
> our SD model for V&V purposes.  If we do not do this, there is little 
> likelihood that the RA spec that we do finally come up with will 
> actually get adopted and used by the stakeholder community we are
targeting for the RA.
> 
> Incidentally, we need to start by defining the static model for the SD

> and not a dynamic model.  The dynamic aspect on use of the SD will 
> come later when we model interaction.
> 
> My two cents...
> 
>  - Jeff E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
******************************************************
Sr. Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.       *
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee*
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com                *
******************************************************