Public Review Draft 02, 20 November, 2006
Document identifier:
wsbpel-specification-pr02
Location:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/
Chairs:
Diane Jordan, IBM
John Evdemon, Microsoft
Editors:
Alexandre Alves, BEA
Assaf Arkin, Intalio
Sid Askary, Individual
Ben Bloch, Systinet
Francisco Curbera, IBM
Mark Ford, Active Endpoints, Inc.
Yaron Goland, BEA
Alejandro Guízar, JBoss, Inc.
Neelakantan Kartha, Sterling Commerce
Canyang Kevin Liu, SAP
Rania Khalaf, IBM
Dieter König, IBM
Mike Marin, IBM, formerly FileNet Corporation
Vinkesh Mehta, Deloitte
Satish Thatte, Microsoft
Danny van der Rijn, TIBCO Software
Prasad Yendluri, webMethods
Alex Yiu, Oracle
This document defines a language for specifying business process behavior based on Web Services. This language is called Web Services Business Process Execution Language (abbreviated to WS-BPEL in the rest of this document). Processes in WS-BPEL export and import functionality by using Web Service interfaces exclusively.
Business processes can be described in two ways. Executable business processes model actual behavior of a participant in a business interaction. Abstract business processes are partially specified processes that are not intended to be executed. An Abstract Process may hide some of the required concrete operational details. Abstract Processes serve a descriptive role, with more than one possible use case, including observablebehavior and process template. WS-BPEL is meant to be used to model the behavior of both Executable and Abstract Processes.
WS-BPEL provides a language for the specification of Executable and Abstract business processes. By doing so, it extends the Web Services interaction model and enables it to support business transactions. WS-BPEL defines an interoperable integration model that should facilitate the expansion of automated process integration in both the intra-corporate and the business-to-business spaces.
This document was last revised or approved by the WS-BPEL TC on the above date. The level of approval is also listed above. Check the current location noted above for possible later revisions of this document. This document is updated periodically on no particular schedule.
Technical Committee members should send comments on this specification to the Technical Committee’s email list. Others should send comments to the Technical Committee by using the “Send A Comment” button on the Technical Committee’s web page at www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel.
For information on whether any patents have been disclosed that may be essential to implementing this specification, and any offers of patent licensing terms, please refer to the Intellectual Property Rights section of the Technical Committee web page ( www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel/ipr.php.)
The non-normative errata page for this specification is located at www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel.
Special thanks to Peter Furniss for his contributions to the WS-BPEL TC in managing the automated issues list.
OASIS takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on OASIS's procedures with respect to rights in OASIS specifications can be found at the OASIS website. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification, can be obtained from the OASIS Executive Director.
OASIS invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to implement this specification. Please address the information to the OASIS Executive Director.
Copyright © OASIS Open 2003, 2006. All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the purpose of developing OASIS specifications, in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights document must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by OASIS or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and OASIS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0
Public Review Draft 02, 20 November, 2006
3. Relationship with Other Specifications
4. Static Analysis of a Business Process
5. Defining a Business Process
5.2. The Structure of a Business Process
5.5. The Lifecycle of an Executable Business Process
5.6. Revisiting the Initial Example
6. Partner Link Types, Partner Links, and Endpoint References
8.2 Usage of Query and Expression Languages
9.2. Declaring and Using Correlation Sets
10.1. Standard Attributes for All Activities
10.2. Standard Elements for All Activities
10.3. Invoking Web Service Operations – Invoke
10.4. Providing Web Service Operations – Receive and Reply
10.5. Updating Variables and Partner Links – Assign
10.6. Signaling Internal Faults – Throw
10.7. Delayed Execution – Wait
10.9. Adding new Activity Types – ExtensionActivity
10.10. Immediately Ending a Process – Exit
10.11. Propagating Faults – Rethrow
11.1. Sequential Processing – Sequence
11.2. Conditional Behavior – If
11.3. Repetitive Execution – While
11.4. Repetitive Execution – RepeatUntil
11.5. Selective Event Processing – Pick
11.6. Parallel and Control Dependencies Processing – Flow
11.7. Processing Multiple Branches – ForEach
12.2. Message Exchange Handling
12.3. Error Handling in Business Processes
13. WS-BPEL Abstract Processes
13.2. Abstract Process Profiles and the Semantics of Abstract Processes
13.3. Abstract Process Profile for Observable Behavior
13.4. Abstract Process Profile for Templates
Appendix B. Static Analysis requirement summary (Non-Normative)
Appendix C. Attributes and Defaults
Appendix D. Examples of Replacement Logic
Appendix H. Committee Members (Non-Normative)
The goal of the Web Services effort is to achieve interoperability between applications by using Web standards. Web Services use a loosely coupled integration model to allow flexible integration of heterogeneous systems in a variety of domains including business-to-consumer, business-to-business and enterprise application integration. The following basic specifications originally defined the Web Services space: SOAP [SOAP 1.1], Web Services Description Language (WSDL) [WSDL 1.1], and Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI) [UDDI]. SOAP defines an XML messaging protocol for basic service interoperability. WSDL introduces a common grammar for describing services. UDDI provides the infrastructure required to publish and discover services in a systematic way. Together, these specifications allow applications to find each other and interact following a loosely coupled, platform independent model.
Systems integration requires more than the ability to conduct simple interactions by using standard protocols. The full potential of Web Services as an integration platform will be achieved only when applications and business processes are able to integrate their complex interactions by using a standard process integration model. The interaction model that is directly supported by WSDL is essentially a stateless model of request-response or uncorrelated one-way interactions.
Models for business interactions typically assume sequences of peer-to-peer message exchanges, both request-response and one-way, within stateful, long-running interactions involving two or more parties. To define such business interactions, a formal description of the message exchange protocols used by business processes in their interactions is needed. An Abstract Process may be used to describe observable message exchange behavior of each of the parties involved, without revealing their internal implementation. There are two good reasons to separate the public aspects of business process behavior from internal or private aspects. One is that businesses obviously do not want to reveal all their internal decision making and data management to their business partners. The other is that, even where this is not the case, separating public from private process provides the freedom to change private aspects of the process implementation without affecting the observable behavior. Observable behavior must clearly be described in a platform independent manner and captures behavioral aspects that may have cross enterprise business significance.
The following concepts for describing business processes should be considered:
· Business processes include data-dependent behavior. For example, a supply-chain process depends on data such as the number of line items in an order, the total value of an order, or a deliver-by deadline. Defining business intent in these cases requires the use of conditional and time-out constructs.
· The ability to specify exceptional conditions and their consequences, including recovery sequences, is at least as important for business processes as the ability to define the behavior in the "all goes well" case.
· Long-running interactions include multiple, often nested units of work, each with its own data requirements. Business processes frequently require cross partner coordination of the outcome (success or failure) of units of work at various levels of granularity.
The basic concepts of WS-BPEL can be applied in one of two ways, Abstract or Executable.
A WS-BPEL Abstract Process is a partially specified process that is not intended to be executed and that must be explicitly declared as ‘abstract’. Whereas Executable Processes are fully specified and thus can be executed, an Abstract Process may hide some of the required concrete operational details expressed by an Executable artifact.
All the constructs of Executables Processes are made available to Abstract Processes; consequently, Executable and Abstract WS-BPEL Processes share the same expressive power. In addition to the features available in Executable Processes, Abstract Processes provide two mechanisms for hiding operational details: (1) the use of explicit opaque tokens and (2) omission. Although a particular Abstract Process definition might contain complete information that would render it Executable, its Abstract status states that any concrete realizations of it are permitted to perform additional processing steps that are not relevant to the audience to which it has been given.
Abstract Processes serve a descriptive role, with more than one use case. One such use case might be to describe the observable behavior of some or all of the services offered by an Executable Process. Another use case would be to define a process template that embodies domain-specific best practices. Such a process template would capture essential process logic in a manner compatible with a design-time representation, while excluding execution details to be completed when mapping to an Executable Process.
Regardless of the specific use case and purpose, all Abstract Processes share a common syntactic base. They have different requirements for the level of opacity and restrictions on which parts of a process definition may be omitted or hidden. Tailored uses of Abstract Processes have different effects on the consistency constraints and on the semantics of that process. Some of these required constraints are not enforceable by the XML Schema.
A common base specifies the features that define the syntactic universe of Abstract Processes. Given this common base, a usage profile provides the necessary specializations and semantics based on Executable WS-BPEL for a particular use of an Abstract Process.
As mentioned above it is possible to use WS-BPEL to define an Executable Business Process. While a WS-BPEL Abstract Process definition is not required to be fully specified, the language effectively defines a portable execution format for business processes that rely exclusively on Web Service resources and XML data. Moreover, such processes execute and interact with their partners in a consistent way regardless of the supporting platform or programming model used by the implementation of the hosting environment.
The continuity of the basic conceptual model between Abstract and Executable Processes in WS-BPEL makes it possible to export and import the public aspects embodied in Abstract Processes as process or role templates while maintaining the intent and structure of the observable behavior. This applies even where private implementation aspects use platform dependent functionality. This is a key feature for the use of WS-BPEL from the viewpoint of unlocking the potential of Web Services because it allows the development of tools and other technologies that greatly increase the level of automation and thereby lower the cost in establishing cross enterprise automated business processes.
In this specification, the description of Abstract Business Processes is presented after Executable. We clearly differentiate concepts required for Abstract Business Process description from the concepts for Executable in the section 13. WS-BPEL Abstract Processes.
WS-BPEL defines a model and a grammar for describing the behavior of a business process based on interactions between the process and its partners. The interaction with each partner occurs through Web Service interfaces, and the structure of the relationship at the interface level is encapsulated in what is called a partnerLink. The WS-BPEL process defines how multiple service interactions with these partners are coordinated to achieve a business goal, as well as the state and the logic necessary for this coordination. WS-BPEL also introduces systematic mechanisms for dealing with business exceptions and processing faults. Moreover, WS-BPEL introduces a mechanism to define how individual or composite activities within a unit of work are to be compensated in cases where exceptions occur or a partner requests reversal.
WS-BPEL utilizes several XML specifications: WSDL 1.1, XML Schema 1.0, XPath 1.0 and XSLT 1.0. WSDL messages and XML Schema type definitions provide the data model used by WS-BPEL processes. XPath and XSLT provide support for data manipulation. All external resources and partners are represented as WSDL services. WS-BPEL provides extensibility to accommodate future versions of these standards, specifically the XPath and related standards used in XML computation.
A WS-BPEL process is a reusable definition that can be deployed in different ways and in different scenarios, while maintaining a uniform application-level behavior across all of them. The description of the deployment of a WS-BPEL process is out of scope for this specification.
The upper case keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
Namespace URIs of the general form "some-URI" represent some application dependent or context dependent URI as defined in [RFC 2396].
This specification uses an informal syntax to describe the XML grammar of the XML fragments that follow:
· The syntax appears as an XML instance, but the values indicate the data types instead of values.
· Grammar in bold has not been introduced earlier in the document, or is of particular interest in an example.
· <-- description --> is a placeholder for elements from some "other" namespace (like ##other in XSD).
· Characters are appended to elements, attributes, and as follows: "?" (0 or 1), "*" (0 or more), "+" (1 or more). The characters "[" and "]" are used to indicate that contained items are to be treated as a group with respect to the "?", "*", or "+" characters.
· Elements and attributes separated by "|" and grouped by "(" and ")" are meant to be syntactic alternatives.
· The XML namespace prefixes (defined below) are used to indicate the namespace of the element being defined.
· The name of user defined extension activity is indicated by anyElementQName.
Syntax specifications are highlighted as follows:
<variables>
<variable name="BPELVariableName"
messageType="QName"?
type="QName"?
element="QName"?>+
from-spec?
</variable>
</variables>
Examples starting with <?xml contain enough information to conform to this specification; other examples are fragments and require additional information to be specified in order to conform.
The examples and other explanatory material in this document are not fully specified unless otherwise noted. For instance, some examples import WSDL definitions that are not specified in this document.
Examples are highlighted as follows:
<variable xmlns:ORD="http://example.com/orders"
name="orderDetails" messageType="ORD:orderDetails" />
XSD Schemas are provided as a definition of grammars [XML Schema Part 1]. Where there is disagreement between the separate XML schema files, the XML schemas in the appendices, any pseudo-schema in the descriptive text, and the normative descriptive text, the normative descriptive text will take precedence over the separate XML Schema files. The separate XML Schema files take precedence over any pseudo-schema and over any XML schema included in the appendices. The WS-BPEL XML Schemas offer supplementary normative XML syntax details, such as details regarding extensibility of a WS-BPEL process definition, as long as those XML syntax details do not violate explicit normative descriptive text.
XML Schemas only enforce a subset of constraints described in the normative descriptive text. Hence, a WS-BPEL artifact, such as a process definition, can be valid according to the XML Schemas only but not valid according to the normative descriptive text.
This specification uses a number of namespace prefixes throughout; their associated URIs are listed below. Note that the choice of any namespace prefix is arbitrary, non-normative and not semantically significant.
· xsi - "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
· xsd - "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
· wsdl - "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"
· vprop - "http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/varprop"
· sref - "http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/serviceref"
· plnk – "http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/plnktype"
· bpel – "http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/process/executable"
· abstract – "http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/process/abstract"
WS-BPEL refers to the following XML-based specifications: WSDL 1.1, XML Schema 1.0, XPath 1.0, XSLT 1.0 and Infoset. All WS-BPEL implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can participate in Basic Profile 1.1 [WS-I Basic Profile] conforming interactions. A WS-BPEL implementation MAY allow the Basic Profile 1.1 configuration to be disabled, even for scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.1.
WSDL has the most influence on the WS-BPEL language. The WS-BPEL process model is layered on top of the service model defined by WSDL 1.1. At the core of the WS-BPEL process model is the notion of peer-to-peer interaction between services described in WSDL; both the process and its partners are exposed as WSDL services. A business process defines how to coordinate the interactions between a process instance and its partners. In this sense, a WS-BPEL process definition provides and/or uses one or more WSDL services, and provides the description of the behavior and interactions of a process instance relative to its partners and resources through Web Service interfaces. That is, WS-BPEL is used to describe the message exchanges followed by the business process of a specific role in the interaction.
The definition of a WS-BPEL business process follows the WSDL model of separation between the abstract message contents used by the business process and deployment information (messages and port type versus binding and address information). In particular, a WS-BPEL process represents all partners and interactions with these partners in terms of abstract WSDL interfaces (port types and operations); no references are made to the actual services used by a process instance. WS-BPEL does not make any assumptions about the WSDL binding. Constraints, ambiguities, provided or missing capabilities of WSDL bindings are out of scope of this specification.
However, the abstract part of WSDL does not define the constraints imposed on the communication patterns supported by the concrete bindings. Therefore a WS-BPEL process may define behavior relative to a partner service that is not supported by all possible bindings, and it may happen that some bindings are invalid for a WS-BPEL process definition.
While WS-BPEL attempts to provide as much compatibility with WSDL 1.1 as possible there are three areas where such compatibility is not feasible.
· Fault naming with its restriction, as discussed later in this document (see section 10.3. Invoking Web Service Operations – Invoke)
· [SA00002] Overloaded operation names in WSDL port types. Regardless of whether the WS-I Basic Profile configuration is enabled, a WS-BPEL processor MUST reject any WSDL port type definition that includes overloaded operation names. This restriction was deemed appropriate as overloaded operations are rare, they are actually banned in the WS-I Basic Profile and supporting them was felt to introduce more complexity than benefit.
· [SA00001] Port types that contain solicit-response or notification operations as defined in the WSDL 1.1 specification. Regardless of whether the WS-I Basic Profile configuration is enabled, a WS-BPEL processor MUST reject a WS-BPEL that refers to such port types.
At the time this specification was completed, various Web Service standards work, such as WSDL 2.0 and WS-Addressing, were ongoing and not ready for consideration for WS-BPEL 2.0. Future versions of WS-BPEL may provide support for these standards.
It should be noted that the examples provided in this specification adopt the Schema at location "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/2004-08-24.xsd" for the namespace URI http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ [WSDL 1.1]. This XML Schema incorporates fixes for known errors, and is the XML Schema selected by the [WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 Errata] (October 25, 2005).
WS-BPEL takes it as a general principle that conformant implementations MUST perform basic static analysis listed in Appendix B to detect and reject process definitions that fail any of those static analysis checks. Please note that such analysis might in some cases prevent the use of processes that would not, in fact, create situations with errors, either in specific uses or in any use. For example, a WS-BPEL implementation will reject a process with <invoke> activity referring to an undefined variable, where the <invoke> activity may not be actually reached during execution of the process.
A WS-BPEL implementation MAY perform extra static analysis checking beyond the basic static analysis required by this specification to signal warnings or even reject process definitions. Such an implementation SHOULD be configurable to disable these non-specified static analysis checks.
5.1. Initial Example
Before describing the structure of business processes in detail, this section presents a simple example of a WS-BPEL process for handling a purchase order. The aim is to introduce the most basic structures and some of the fundamental concepts of the language.
The operation of the process is very simple, and is represented in Figure 1: Purchase Order Process Outline. Dotted lines represent sequencing. Free grouping of sequences represents concurrent sequences. Solid arrows represent control links used for synchronization across concurrent activities. Note that this is not meant to be a definitive graphical notation for WS-BPEL processes. It is used here informally as an aid to understanding.
On receiving the purchase order from a customer, the process initiates three paths concurrently: calculating the final price for the order, selecting a shipper, and scheduling the production and shipment for the order. While some of the processing can proceed concurrently, there are control and data dependencies between the three paths. In particular, the shipping price is required to finalize the price calculation, and the shipping date is required for the complete fulfillment schedule. When the three concurrent paths are completed, invoice processing can proceed and the invoice is sent to the customer.
Figure 1: Purchase Order Process - Outline
The WSDL port type offered by the service to its customers (purchaseOrderPT) is shown in the following WSDL document. Other WSDL definitions required by the business process are included in the same WSDL document for simplicity; in particular, the port types for the Web Services providing price calculation, shipping selection and scheduling, and production scheduling functions are also defined there. Observe that there are no bindings or service elements in the WSDL document. A WS-BPEL process is defined by referencing only the port types of the services involved in the process, and not their possible deployments. Defining business processes in this way allows the reuse of business process definitions over multiple deployments of compatible services.
The <partnerLinkType>s included at the bottom of the WSDL document represent the interaction between the purchase order service and each of the parties with which it interacts (see section 6. Partner Link Types, Partner Links, and Endpoint References). <PartnerLinkType>s can be used to represent dependencies between services, regardless of whether a WS-BPEL business process is defined for one or more of those services. Each <partnerLinkType> defines up to two "role" names, and lists the port types that each role must support for the interaction to be carried out successfully. In this example, two <partnerLinkType>s, "purchasingLT" and "schedulingLT", list a single role because, in the corresponding service interactions, one of the parties provides all the invoked operations: The "purchasingLT" <partnerLinkType>represents the connection between the process and the requesting customer, where only the purchase order service needs to offers a service operation ("sendPurchaseOrder"); the "schedulingLT" <partnerLinkType>represents the interaction between the purchase order service and the scheduling service, in which only operations of the latter are invoked. The two other <partnerLinkType>s, "invoicingLT" and "shippingLT", define two roles because both the user of the invoice calculation and the user of the shipping service (the invoice or the shipping schedule) must provide callback operations to enable notifications to be sent ("invoiceCallbackPT" and "shippingCallbackPT" port types).
<wsdl:definitions
targetNamespace="http://manufacturing.org/wsdl/purchase"
xmlns:sns="http://manufacturing.org/xsd/purchase"
xmlns:pos="http://manufacturing.org/wsdl/purchase"
xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"
xmlns:plnk="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/plnktype"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<wsdl:types>
<xsd:schema>
<xsd:import namespace="http://manufacturing.org/xsd/purchase"
schemaLocation="http://manufacturing.org/xsd/purchase.xsd" />
</xsd:schema>
</wsdl:types>
<wsdl:message name="POMessage">
<wsdl:part name="customerInfo" type="sns:customerInfoType" />
<wsdl:part name="purchaseOrder" type="sns:purchaseOrderType" />
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:message name="InvMessage">
<wsdl:part name="IVC" type="sns:InvoiceType" />
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:message name="orderFaultType">
<wsdl:part name="problemInfo" element=”sns:OrderFault " />
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:message name="shippingRequestMessage">
<wsdl:part name="customerInfo" element="sns:customerInfo" />
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:message name="shippingInfoMessage">
<wsdl:part name="shippingInfo" element="sns:shippingInfo" />
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:message name="scheduleMessage">
<wsdl:part name="schedule" element="sns:scheduleInfo" />
</wsdl:message>
<!-- portTypes supported by the purchase order process -->
<wsdl:portType name="purchaseOrderPT">
<wsdl:operation name="sendPurchaseOrder">
<wsdl:input message="pos:POMessage" />
<wsdl:output message="pos:InvMessage" />
<wsdl:fault name="cannotCompleteOrder"
message="pos:orderFaultType" />
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:portType>
<wsdl:portType name="invoiceCallbackPT">
<wsdl:operation name="sendInvoice">
<wsdl:input message="pos:InvMessage" />
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:portType>
<wsdl:portType name="shippingCallbackPT">
<wsdl:operation name="sendSchedule">
<wsdl:input message="pos:scheduleMessage" />
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:portType>
<!-- portType supported by the invoice services -->
<wsdl:portType name="computePricePT">
<wsdl:operation name="initiatePriceCalculation">
<wsdl:input message="pos:POMessage" />
</wsdl:operation>
<wsdl:operation name="sendShippingPrice">
<wsdl:input message="pos:shippingInfoMessage" />
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:portType>
<!-- portType supported by the shipping service -->
<wsdl:portType name="shippingPT">
<wsdl:operation name="requestShipping">
<wsdl:input message="pos:shippingRequestMessage" />
<wsdl:output message="pos:shippingInfoMessage" />
<wsdl:fault name="cannotCompleteOrder"
message="pos:orderFaultType" />
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:portType>