Re: [wsrf] new issue: portType composition and properties documentcomposition

[Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>]

Section 4.3 defines the @ResourceProperties
attribute extension of WSDL 1.1 portType. This is absolutely required.
 We cannot and should not remove section 4.3

Now, Igor's discussion suggests that
it is perhaps section 4.4 that is the issue.  I am ok with removing
the cut and paste discussion and moving it into the app note.  I am
totally against removing the descriptoin of forming the RP document.  This
text must stay for purposes of interoperability of RP docs across different
smashed portTypes.

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

"Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>

10/29/2004 12:45 AM

To	<wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[wsrf] new issue: portType composition and properties document composition

Before I forget, here is the issue that I promised to
post after we closed the "DerivedFrom" issue with no action.
 
[
I propose to remove section 4.3 from the WSRF-RP document
in favor of 
 
#1 the document defines a number of message exchanges
which an implementer of a Web services endpoint will need to support and,
as a consequence, describe in a WSDL document following the rules defined
by WSDL. The only conformance claim that the WSRF-RP specification can
define is therefore that the implemented WSRF-RP message exchnages MUST
be described in WSDL. Full stop.
I want to note again, that the current draft of the WSRF-RP
specification does not require that operation names in WSDL be one way
or the other. This is good, and we must remove any other claims that profile
use of WSDL such as the section 4.3.
 
#2 The same applies to the properties document. The implementer
of a Web service endpoint which intends to support WSRF-RP will decide
what properties document schema is needed. The implementer is responsible
to understand what properties will be supported, how and why. Any composition
and rules thereof are part of such understanding. The implementer, then,
uses XML Schema to describe the properties document. Full stop.
I believe that WSRF-RP document MUST not make any assertions
or normative claims or even explanatory notes which describe how one comes
to realization *what* properties document to describe in the XML Schema.
Therefore section 4.3 must be removed.
]
 
Igor Sedukhin