[ogsa-dmi-wg] Alternative Rendering of the Functional Specification
Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com
Thu Aug 23 08:31:38 CDT 2007
I have been digging into the problem of alternative renderings for OGSA-DMI.
As per charter we are supposed to deliver at least two different renderings:
a) WS-I BaseProfile compliant rendering
b) WSRF compliant rendering.
Leaving the additional WSRF operations out of the equation for the moment
there is indeed a terminal incompatibility between those two renderings.
I am not sure about the WS-I part on this picture, but the WSRF part of that
picture is as follows, particularly the WSRF BaseFault specification
Chapter 3 in the BaseFaults specification defines how BaseFaults (and
derived distinguieshed types) MUST be used in WSDL 1.1.
Lines 237 to 239 of that specification explicitly links a BaseFault or any
of its derived types through a (WS-I compliant!) wsdl:message to a
wsdl:operation declaration. In other words, this is a closed link that
leaves no room for alternatives.
Hence alternative renderings MAY be interoperable on the input and output
messages of any genuinely defined operation (such as the DTF's
"requestDataTransfer()") but when it comes to faults alternative renderings
CANNOT be interoperable as there MUST be a distinctively defined fault
I believe that WS-I has similar if not the same requirements. Any expert
Having said that I believe that alternative implementations of different
renderings will not be interoperable, unless we define interoperability to
exclude any fault messages. We might, if we define common wsa:Action values
and explicitly allow a CONSUMER (from WS-I Basic Profile 1.1) to ignore the
soap:Fault child element.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-dmi-wg/attachments/20070823/832f456d/attachment.pgp
More information about the ogsa-dmi-wg