[ogsa-dmi-wg] OGSA-DMI: WSDL and XML Schema

[Michel Drescher]

Folks,

here's an iteration of the WSDLs and XML Schemata I sent this Monday.

It now includes the WSRF rendering which, by inclusion is  
interoperable with the WS-I SP rendering.

Formally the WSDLs won't validate as I intentionally left out the  
bindings.

Cheers,
Michel

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dmi_wsdl_schemata.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 7744 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-dmi-wg/attachments/20080130/c8025458/attachment-0001.zip 
-------------- next part --------------

On 28 Jan 2008, at 18:00, Michel Drescher wrote:

> Guys,
>
> as promised, I did a XML Schema and WSDL hacking session today. The  
> primary goal was to figure out what can go as appendix to the  
> Functional Specification and what needs to be separated out into  
> binding specific documents.
>
> The guideline was to define as much as possible in binding neutral  
> terms, and keep all message element definitions and supplementary  
> XML elements to separate documents.
>
> I came up with the attached files (extract the ZIP file first!):
>
> 1) dmi-datamodel.xsd
> This file is intended to be added as an appendix to the Functional  
> Specification as it is binding neutral and, in fact, totally  
> message neutral.
>
> 2) dmi-wsi-messages.xsd
> This file contains the message element definitions and wrapper  
> elements that are WS-I compliant. Consequently it contains all the  
> request, response and fault message definitions, plus some  
> supplementary wrappers that are clearly related to WS messages (and  
> not to the data model).
>
> 3) dmi-wsi-wsdl.wsdl
> This file contains the formal WS-I compliant port type definition.  
> THIS FILE IS NOT COMPLETE YET. Though the port type is complete, we  
> are still missing the SOAPAction values, or, alternatively, WS- 
> Addressing compliant wsa:Action definitions.
> I would strongly argue for WS-Addressing Action elements as they  
> can be placed in the portType section, as opposed to the SOAPAction  
> values which MUST be defined in the binding section. But we can  
> discuss this on the subsequent calls. :)
>
>
> The primary goal now is to have you guys review the data model  
> schema which should go into the Functional Specification.
>
> I made some subtle changes to allow for data type reusage - please  
> pay attention to the dmi:AvailableProtocols and  
> dmi:SupportedProtocols elements.
>
> Cheers, and see you on the call on Wednesday,
> Michel<dmi-wsdl-schema.zip>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-dmi-wg/attachments/20080130/c8025458/attachment-0001.bin