RE: [uddi-spec] WSDL TN: Claus's Issues

[Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>]

Let me add one more issue to the list:

6) The requirement to capture the WSDL Entity Type for service and port.

I'm with John on this. From my perspective, the critical goal of this TN is
to support the needs of WSDL tools:
- to automatically register service types and implementations based on WSDL
- to obtain WSDL for a particular service type or implementation

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:46 AM
> To: 'John Colgrave'; uddi-spec
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] WSDL TN: Claus's Issues
>
>
> John,
>
> Excellent idea.
> I agree to the lists, except that I'm missing an issue in the
> list of issues that are still open:
> 5) The requirement to identify the wsdl:port from a given
> uddi:bindingTemplate (i.e. why to register the port's target
> namespace and local name in UDDI).
>
> Thanks,
>  Claus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Colgrave [mailto:colgrave@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 19. November 2002 14:24
> To: uddi-spec
> Subject: [uddi-spec] WSDL TN: Claus's Issues
>
>
> Claus,
>
> I would like to reset this discussion as the chain of notes is becoming
> unwieldy.  I would like to spell out the issues that I think are
> closed and
> then list the issues that are still open.  I will then start a separate
> discussion of each of the open items.
>
> The issues that I think are closed are:
> 1) The use of wsdlDeployment in the V3 mapping/model.
>
> That list is shorter than I was expecting! :-)
>
> The issues that I think are still open are:
> 1) The cardinality of the mapping between wsdl:service and
> uddi:businessService.
> 2) The requirement to generate the wsdl:service.
> 3) The use of something like wsdlDeployment in the V2 mapping/model.
> 4) The tagging of the bindingTemplate rather than the binding tModel with
> details of the protocol and/or transport.
>
> Do you agree with these lists?
>
> Before going on to respond to each of these open issues
> separately, I would
> like to give a little more of my general perspective.  A lot of the
> discussion has been around the requirements for web service
> interoperability, no doubt influenced by WS-I.  While I think
> that WS-I is a
> very valid and valuable perspective, it is by no means the only one.  I
> would go further and say that, for WSDL, it is probably not the most
> important one at the moment.  A different perspective that is at least as
> important is that of programming languages and application development
> tools.  Most of the implementations of the current BP are in that context
> and I would say most of the usage of WSDL in general.
>
> John Colgrave
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>