Comments on the "Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry, v2" TN

[Luc Clément <luc@iclement.net>]

John,

 

I was reviewing the "Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry, v2" TN and noticed a few issues that I'd like to bring up to your attention and get comments from you.

 

a. Section 2.4.1 - Mandatory requirement to have a keyedReference to the "XML Namespace category system"

The text of 2.4.1 states that a keyedReference to the XML Namespace category system is mandatory, however, the footnote states ..."but applying the mapping defined in this TN to a WSDL definitions element that does not have a targetNamespace is not recommended."

 

I think the use of "not recommended" is incorrect and should be strengthened to "not allowed".

b. Section A.2 - Reference v2 behaviour but does not specify a v3 behaviour.

Section A.2 references v2 but does not describe v3 behaviour. v3 references are required (i.e. the useType of "endPoint" is required rather than URLType of "other")

c. Section B.9.1 - only references v2 but states nothing for v3

Presumably, we had intended that the v2 and v3 behaviours be the same; that said, it's not clear if this is really the case. Someone may be tempted (which I think should be mandatory - see below) to categorize a v3 bindingTemplate with the "WSDL Address" tModel. I think that this needs to be clarified.

 

Given the above, it would seem to me that for purpose of consistency with section 2.5.2, that for the case of v3, the bindingTemplate also MUST be categorized with a reference to the "WSDL Address" tModel. Note that this would require this tModel (B.9.1) to be changed to a "categorization" tModel and a valid value (B.9.3) be assigned (i.e. wsdl:address or something like that).

Thoughts?

 

Luc