W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org > August 2005

RE: Tardy remarks on typos etc.

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:44:47 +0100
To: <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, <public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006201c59831$85492530$0901a8c0@ie.oracle.com>


Many thanks for the detailed review. 
We are incorporating them into the final draft.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-ws-chor-comments-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-ws-chor-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>Drew McDermott
>Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:10 AM
>To: public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org
>Cc: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu
>Subject: Tardy remarks on typos etc.
>Here are some proposed corrections to the latest draft of the 
>Web Services Choreography Description Language (WS-CDL).
>URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/edcopies/cdl/cdl.html
>I've ordered them from "typos" to "stylistic infelicities."  
>The typos are likely to be uncontroversial, but the later 
>categories are probably too drastic to be useful at this 
>stage.  I'm sorry this took me so long.
>The notation for changes is
>which means that the occurrence of pre-current-post should be 
>changed to pre-suggested-post.  If 'current' is empty, it 
>means that 'suggested' should be inserted.  If 'suggested' is 
>empty, it means that 'current' should be deleted.  Sometimes 
>this notation is generalized to multiple 'current-suggested' pairs:
>In section 5.2, "Variables," and several other places, we have 
><ul> lists inside <ul> lists, and apparently the stylesheets 
>to make them nest perspicuously are missing.
>[/Note that the Variable "OrderState" at the Buyer is a 
>different Variable /to/=>/from/ the "OrderState" at the Seller//=>/.//]
>[/also used in this Choreography, thus sharing the 
>Variable//=>/'/s information./]
>[/A perform activity MUST bind a free Variable defined in 
>a/=>/n/ performed Choreography/]
>[/The OPTIONAL attribute free, when set to "false" specifies 
>that /a/=>/the/ Variable is defined in this Choreography.]
>[/When this parameter is used, the /cureent/=>/current/ date 
>[/A Variable defined in a Choreography is visible for use in 
>this Choreography and all its enclosed 
>Choreographies/up-to/=>/up to/ the point that the Variable is 
>/re-defined/=>/redefined/ as a/n/=>// non-free Variable, thus 
>forming a Choreography Visibility Horizon for this Variable./]
>[/The OPTIONAL complete attribute /allows/=>/makes it 
>possible/ to explicitly complete/]
>[/Alternatively, a Choreography in //=>/a /Successfully 
>Completed State/] 
>[/an exception causing activity is performed that has a 
>/causeExeption/=>/causeException/ attribute value/] 
>[/The actions/, including enclosed Choreographies that have 
>not completed, within this Choreography/=>/ within this 
>Choreography, including enclosed Choreographies that have not 
>completed, / are completed abnormally before/]
>[/If more than one Finalizer Block/s are/=>/ is/ defined for 
>the same Choreography/]
>[/Choreographies defined as requiring coordination must 
>be/ing/=>// bound to a Coordination protocol./]
>In the CreditDecider example, the third comment is identical 
>to the second; it should say "B" instead of "A"
>Grammatical Irregularities
>There are places in the document that are simply not legal 
>English.  I don't know how much that matters.  Here is one--
>[/By introducing this abstraction, a Choreography definition 
>avoids referencing /directly the data types/=>/the data types 
>directly/, as defined within a WSDL document or an XML Schema 
>Commas Misplaced
>Many sections of the document seem to follow German 
>conventions for comma placement instead of English ones.  For 
>instance, in English, restrictive relative clauses must not be 
>bounded by commas.  It is almost never correct to separate 
>subject and predicate by a comma.
>[/A Choreography in an Enabled State/,/=>// completes 
>unsuccessfully/,/=>// when an Exception is caused in the Choreography/]
>[/The unsuccessfully completed Choreography/,/=>// enters the 
>Closed State/] 
>[/A Choreography in an Enabled State/,/=>// completes 
>successfully when there are no more enabled activities within 
>its body./]
>[/A Choreography/,/=>// in a Successfully Completed 
>State/,/=>// enters the Closed State if no Finalizer Blocks 
>were specified in that Choreography./]
>[/A Choreography/,/=>// in a Successfully Completed State with 
>Finalizer Block(s) specified enters the Closed State/]
>[/When Choreography Coordination is not required, then the 
>Choreography is not bound to a Coordination protocol/,/=>// 
>and//=>/,/ since none of the above guarantees of agreement on 
>the outcome apply//=>/,/ any required coordination should/]
>Stylistic Infelicities
>In this version all occurrences of <code> ...</code> are gone. 
> This makes the document much less clear.  I suppose this is 
>some unfortunate W3C rule.
>[/The element roleType is used to identify/ the roleType of a 
>party, being the type of the target of an information 
>exchange, which is then used for statically determining where 
>and how to send or receive information to or into the party.  
>Each roleType is specified by the typeRef attribute of the 
>roleType element. =>/a party (named by the typeRef
>attribute) that will be involved in an information exchange 
>using this channel./]
>[/If two identity elements are specified within the same or 
>different channelType elements, /that/=>/and they/ have the 
>same set of named tokens in the same order, then they are 
>considered to represent the same identity type./]
>[/This classification is used to indicate that this channel 
>instance is correlated to a previous channel instance identity, 
>and therefore//=> they are associated with/ the same 
>choreography instance./] 
>It's unfortunate that the word "capturing" is in the name of 
>every kind of variable; since it's always there, it contains 
>no information. Wouldn't it be cleaner to have 
>"information-exchange variables," "state variables," etc.?
>In sect. 5.2, the paragraph starting "The value of Variables:" 
>is extremely hard to understand.  It's followed by three 
>unordered lists, most of whose elements can't follow the 
>initial phrase.
>In the first paragraph of section 5.4, we have "Variables 
>contain values which MAY be populated or assigned...."  What's 
>the difference between being populated and being assigned?
>[/when an Exception is caused in the Choreography and its 
>Exception Block/ is enabled, if present/=>/, if present, is enabled./]
>[/<li>/Other types of errors/=>/Some other kind of error 
>occurs/, such as Protocol Based Exchange failures,/]
>[/The channelVariable attribute specifies the /Channel 
>Variable containing information of a party, being the target 
>of the Interaction, which is used for determining where and 
>how to send and receive information to and into the 
>party./=>/channel to be used to communicate during the 
>interaction.//] (I _think_ this is the intended meaning; if 
>not, then I have no idea what it means.)
>Why are so many of the examples laid out as single, overlong lines?
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2005 13:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:46:25 UTC