This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
> Section 2.3: > Monica. This is extending the expressed boundaries of WS-Choreography > and borders on the technical details that would be described in other > standards such as CPP/A. This is a comment about our boundaries rather > than a suggestion to use CPP/A. > David. This is another topic we need to discuss.
After further review and discussion, a short list of specifications have been identified as either critical or optional to ws-chor: --> Critical * BPEL * WSDL * XPath/XQuery --> Optional * BPMN * BPSS * WS-Coordination * WS-Reliability * WS-Addressing There are others which I am continuing to investigate and will discuss. I would like to enter the above critical and optional dependencies as a part of a general discussion point on ws-chor dependencies. The BPEL, WSDL and XPath dependencies are critical to ws-chor and we will need to resolve which versions we will support in 1.0. The BPMN, BPSS and WS-Coordination are less critical yet may impact ws-chor and thus need to be discussed. I will present more details on these in this bug description.
At this point we have resolved to support: - BPEL 1.1 - WSDL 1.1 (per BP 1.1 restrictions) - XPath 1.0 (implied by XInclude) - WSDL 2.0 (supported MEPs is is still under discussion) Issues w.r.t. others include: - BPMN 1.0: Supports CDL concepts via collaboration model and related attributes. Supports WSDL 1.1, however, this is transparent to CDL. - BPSS 1.0.x: Implicitly conforms to WSDL 2.0 MEPs. In my opinion this is entirely transparent to CDL (although this is still under discussion). - WS-Addressing (W3C Member Submission 10 August 2004): There is nothing I have seen up to this point in CDL which constrains or otherwise impacts compatibility with WS-Addressing. Note that WS- Addressing is conformant to SOAP 1.2 and is designed to be able to work with WSDL 1.1. - WS-Coordination: Conforms to WSDL 1.1; MEPs are transparent to this spec. However, this specification is proprietary and in its present form depends on the pre-W3C proprietary WS-Addressing specification. I would like to raise the issue with the group that we should have WS-Chor specification look toward supporting WS-Coordination when it is submitted to the W3C, but before then, not have any mention of it in the spec. - WS-Reliability: As far as I have seen, this supports WSDL 1.1 per BP 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 MEPs (w.r.t. their robust forms). In my opinion it is transparent to CDL, however, the issue of supporting WSDL 2.0 MEPs and their transparency to CDL is still under discussion. However, since WS-Reliability based in WSDL 1.1 is transparent to CDL, WSDL 2.0's full set of MEPs are likewise transparent to CDL.
More on WSDL 2.0 support w.r.t. MEPs: At the binding level (especially the most common SOAP binding level), WSDL 2.0 limits itself to the MEPs defined in SOAP 1.2, which are SOAP Request/Response and SOAP-Response MEPs. The HTTP binding (the only other binding defined in WSDL 2.0) also supports only In-Out and In-Only. Though WSDL 2.0 defines an exhaustive set of useful MEPs, practical support (at the binding level) is only available for the In-Out and In-Only patterns. Therefore, with WSDL 2.0, we are limited to BP 1.1 sanctioned WSDL MEPs. However, if we support WS-Reliability 1.0, which in essence specifies support of robust in-out and in- only MEPs, we can support these MEPs in WSDL 2.0. As far as I have seen, this is all transparent to CDL. I propose that we specify support of WSDL 2.0 MEPs as conforming to BP 1.1, with the inclusion of WSDL 2.0 robust in-out and robust in-only MEPs.
Correction to my last comment - WSDL 2.0 only provides Robust In-Only and Robust Out-Only MEPs. WS-Reliability implicitly supports only Robust In-Only, As such, CDL should support only WSDL 2.0's Robust In-Only.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 556 ***