4.4 that is right. My mistake.
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Graham
[mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com] Sent: Fri 10/29/2004 9:24 AM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S Cc: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrf] new issue: portType composition and properties
document composition
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
|