Title: Message

yes, but tools will ignore namespaces in WSDL for the most cases. I guess may be with WSDL 2.0 the situation will change.

I still feel that for modeling more explicit names are better, but that is ok for now.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor...@ca.com) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vb...@hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:53 PM To: Sedukhin, Igor S; ws...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] [MUWS] names of the capabilities Igor,

Isn't this taken care of by the namespace? In your example, Identity is defined in the MUWS namespace. MUWS is about manageable resource, therefore we know that we are talking about the identity of the manageable resource. If someone creates another set of capabilities and call that set "Identity" it will be ok because they will do so in another namespace. So you can still associate a portType with each of them, and then, in WSDL 2.0, use both at the same time.

William

To identity semantics and aid representation translation, names of the capabilities have to be more explicit in UML. For example, instead of mere "Identity" it should be "ManageableResourceIdentity". Because then it could be directly translated into <portType name="ManageableResourceIdentity"> and used in WSDL 2.0 when extending interfaces.