This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
I think your group has not fully resolved the WSDL dilemma about outbound operations. I had raised that before, it might be that I don't understand, but you are limiting all WSDLs to have inbound operations only (note that this is a recommendation of WS-I). So, I did not see how in the interaction element you could actually specify that this outbound operation maps to this inbound operation. We are supporting this in ebBP (we call it operation mapping). We can map any combination of operations to an ebBP business transaction and we can also map WS operatoins together, from one party to another. JJ-
From 8-feb-05 concall: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Feb/att-0003/Minutes- 02082005-0.txt left open subject to response from JJ
After discussing with JJ, we've clarified that the issue he's raised is how does one specify the mapping between outbound and inbound operations (or inbound and outbound operations) in a CDL. I've indicated that any and all such mapping details are not the domain of CDL, but delegated to lower-layer specifications/stacks (WSDL, WS-Addressing, BPEL, etc.) which carry such responsibilities. We are in agreement that CDL is not the level at which one specifies mapping. JJ in the meantime will review the other involved specifications to better clarify when and where such mapping takes place.
After discussion with JJ we are in agreement on the following w.r.t. issue #1064: - We agree that issue #1064 concerns where mapping between operations is defined and how is this mapping performed in CDL. - We agree that mapping between operations is outside the scope of CDL and delegated to underlying specificiations (XSLT, XPath, WSDL, WS-Addressing, BPEL, etc.). - We agree that further review of these other, underlying specifications may be necessary to further clarify how and where mapping is performed. - We agree that either of both of us would raise any issues w.r.t. mapping with these specifications with their respective WG/TCs. As such I am marking this issue as "FIXED".
JJ has been informed of the resolution and has confirmed it is acceptable: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jul/0010.html