I suspect any RESTful spec will need a little of both - some automatically generated content from the schema (to JSON, presumably) and text that "binds" it all together into a spec that can actually be implemented (model is abstract, binding is concrete).
Waving our hands while saying WSDL defines everything is, IMHO, a mistake. All you have to do it look at IPP FaxOut or IPPSIX to see how a direct mapping of a Semantic Model/Cloud Imaging schema isn't enough on its own.
On 2013-06-17, at 10:34 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>> The RESTful mapping specification could be written using WSDL 2.0, but I don't think we currently have a WSDL 2.0 schema anywhere…the namespaces between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 are quite different, and the structure of a 2.0 WSDL looks a bit different than a 1.1.
>> Ira pointed out that we might be able to use a single spec for both RESTful and WS-* mappings, but I'm not sure if that's going to work - it might - I just haven't seen it done. IBM has a raft of WSDL 2.0 RESTful specs, but they're ONLY RESTful WSDL 2.0 specs…not a combined WS-* / RESTful spec.
>> I had a chat with a guy from Google and he indicated all of their web services (public facing) have RESTful implementations, and that the API specification is a very simple text-based document describing the URIs, parameters, and basic operation. You don't have to know XML, XSD, or WSDL dialect to understand it.
>> As an example of a text-based (non-standard) spec, the following link documents Google's "search" API:
>>https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/using_rest#query-params>> I'm not opposed to using WSDL 2.0, but we may need a WSDL for WS-* and a separate WSDL (2.0) for REST. I'm still looking into this.
>>> On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Michael Sweet wrote:
>>>> On 2013-06-17, at 5:25 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com> wrote:
>>> I also wanted to make sure that the concept of registration ("I want to make my printer available to the cloud") is included -- I'm uneasy with some of the items we've talked about in the past being "out of scope" -- Without registration, nothing happens - there is no "service". We may need to review a couple of other "out-of-scope" items to make sure we're not specifying an abstract model that can't be instantiated by something "concrete" that actually works.
>>>> I think we are all now on the same page WRT registration. As Glen likes to call it, our focus will be on "device registration" and not on the specific security/ACL implementation details - that will be IDS's bailiwick. Thus, it will be possible to use the model with any security framework so long as it meets the basic requirements of the Semantic Model and whatever we come up with for requirements of Cloud.
>>>>> On a separate thread, I would like to "re-introduce" my proposal that we include a RESTful specification as one of our initial mapping documents for cloud imaging.
>>>> There was some discussion about how we might document implementing the PWG model with existing cloud solutions - perhaps that could be part of the RESTful binding specification (as an informative appendix)?
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...