My mistake here.
When I wrote all the original System, Service, Subunit, etc. classes for
PWG SM 2.0 schema in the PWG WIMS project, I wrote only WSDL 2.0.
I mistakenly thought that Pete has been releasing WSDL 2.0 since then.
If we issued PWG SM 2.0 XML Schema w/ WSDL 2.0, a *lot* of the
heavy lifting for REST and other bindings would be done.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>>
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...