OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Re: question about WSDL/UDDI TN 2 (information missing from document)


None of these issues apply to the latest version.  Admittedly, nobody but me has seen the latest version. J

 

Please note that we have not removed the “WSDL deployment” option, but it is now known as the “WSDL Implementation Document” option and is implemented differently so the tModels are no longer needed.

 

John Colgrave

IBM

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
Sent: 03 June 2003 18:30
To: Geis, Matt; Uddi-Spec
Subject: [uddi-spec] Re: question about WSDL/UDDI TN 2 (information missing from document)

 

Matt,

 

Thanks very much for your comments. I will forward them to the team.

 

I handed editorial control over to John Colgrave a few months back, and I must admit, I haven't perused the current document with a fine-toothed comb.

 

1. We did some redesign of the tModels near the end, and we did away with the WSDL URL Reference and WSDL URL tModels (originially they were designed to support a "WSDL deployment" option -- which would permit you to reference a WSDL document to obtain the access point of the service -- after considerable debate we elected to remove this option.) But it appears that John neglected to remove the references to the tModels in section 2.3.3.

 

2. These three tModels were the last ones we created, and John just didn't generate them before submitting the draft for review. They will be specified in the final document.

 

3. I'd say that this is a semantically irrelevant typo -- but I'll tell John to fix it. (As you same -- keyName is not semantically relevant)

 

4. You are correct -- but John hadn't generated the V2 keys...

 

Best regards,

Anne

----- Original Message -----

From: Geis, Matt

Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:45 PM

Subject: question about WSDL/UDDI TN 2 (information missing from document)

 

Hi Anne,

I had a couple questions about the OASIS technical note about Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry, v2.0.  I figured I'd mail them to you, as you are listed as an editor.  If there's a better party to whom to send these comments, could you either forward them or let me know who that party is so I can forward them?  Thanks.  I didn't want to subscribe to a list simply to point out issues with the document that appear to be oversights (rather than items for discussion about the content itself).  I'm relatively new to UDDI, but I think these are legitimate findings, so please bear with me.

 

1.In section 2.3.3 (New Canonical tModels, the document makes reference to such new models as "WSDL URL Reference" and "WSDL URL", and says they "are described in Appendix B.  However, I was unable to find them described anywhere in the document.  I was able to find the other new canonical models (WSDL Entity Type, XML Namespace, XML Local Name, WSDL portType Reference, SOAP Protocol, and HTTP Protocol, Protocol Categorization, Transport Categorization, and WSDL Address).  So, of the 12 new tModels, nine are described and two are totally absent from the document.  Where can I find descriptions of and usage examples for these missing tModels?

2.I was surprised to see that for three tModels, the V1,V2 format key was not provided.  It seems odd, that if the authors were able to hash keys for six other tModels, that these three would not have their V1/V2 keys provided.  Is there a particular reason for this omission, or is this just an oversight.  Here are the hashed V1/V2 keys, should they be of use (I used the InspireIT UDDI client library to generate them, and cross-checked them against expected results where both the v3 and v1/v2 keys are known).

 

uddi:uddi.org:wsdl:categorization:protocol

uuid:ee733f78-b289-3637-8ff5-1623ea4672dd

 

uddi:uddi.org:wsdl:categorization:transport

uuid:4eeccd58-d3b0-3a6f-a466-9cce01cb1273

 

uddi:uddi.org:wsdl:address

uuid:2646df99-ec31-3c67-80e2-5743d0c0e829

 

3.In the tModel Structure provided in B.7.2.1 (uuid:uddi.org:wsdl:categorization:protocol) it gives a keyedReference with a keyName of "uddi-org:types:checked" and a keyValue of "unchecked".  While the uddi server will ostensibly ignore the keyName, it seems that for better readability the name and the value should correspond.  However, I may not understand the reason behind this choice of "checked".  Is this an oversight, or is there something here I'm not understanding? (this issue repeats on other tModel structure listings.

4.On page 20 of the document, in the description of the UDDI binding tModel for the example WSDL specification, I think any reader would find useful the inclusion of the correct keys (or at least an explanation of what keys to use) for attaching references to SOAP and HTTP to the category bag.  Currently, the listing reads tModelKey="uuid:xxx"" (hardly intuitive, and not very useful).  I'm assuming these references should point to the Protocol Categorization and Transport Categorization tModels, and the key values should be the tModel keys for the SOAP and HTTP tModels, respectively.  Is this correct?

 

Thanks for your help on these issues, and for your work on the document.  I wouldn't be writing you with these comments if it weren't to try to help improve an already well-written, easily readable document.

 

Matt Geis

 

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]