Re: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal

Li,

I think the sentence you are referring to is, in fact, incorrect. It 
would have been more accurate to say:

"The portTypes contain operations which may or may not map to the Events 
that are transmitted."

There are a number of reasons why it might not be possible to map from 
an operation to an Event (or Event Type).

1.) Wrapped Notifications deliberately avoid any linkage between the 
Notify element that the Event's it contains.

2.) The /portType/operation/input/@message may refer to a /message who's 
'part' element contains a @type (that refers to an XML Schema type) and 
not an @element (which refers to a XML Schema GED). Since we defined 
Event Types in terms of GED's, what you end up with is 
similar-but-not-really an Event Type. You certainly can't construct an 
XPath 1.0-based filter when all you know is the schema type.

3.) The /portType/operation/input/@message may refer to a /message with 
more than one 'part' element. Unless you understand the details of the 
Notification Format that corresponds to this Notification WSDL, it is 
hard to determine which part is the 'event part' and which is 'other 
stuff'. It is entirely possible for the event information to be split 
between two or more parts.

Even in situations in which there is a an unambiguous linkage from 
/portType/operation/input/@message --> /message/part/@element --> GED, 
we would need to describe this linkage, the constraints on the 
Notification WSDL that make it possible, and the Notification Formats 
for which it is valid. This would add a great deal of complexity to what 
is already a fairly complex subject and it is not clear to me that this 
increase in complexity would yield a corresponding increase in either 
clarity or functionality.

- gp

On 8/28/2009 11:57 AM, Li, Li (Li) wrote:
> ... It worth noting that this was part of the 
> proposal that was originally sent in - I didn't change this sentence.
>
> Doug:
>
> Yes, that sentence was in Gil's proposal to the WG
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0
> 058.html). However, your change
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/a
> tt-0061/ws-eventing-6401-6-dug2.doc) deleted the following sentences: 
>
> Notification WSDLs contain abstract port types and concrete bindings. 
> The port types contain operations that correspond to the Events that 
> are transmitted. The bindings describe the Notification Formats (e.g. 
> Unwrapped or Wrapped) for those Events.
>
> Those sentences define what a Notification WSDL may contain: Events and
> Notification Format. That's why I added a few words to retain the above
> meaning. If we remove them completely, we lost what a Notification WSDL
> can do in general. 
>
> Thanks,
>
> Li
>  
>
>
>