W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > February 2006

w3c ws cdl 2/14/2006: Start of Comments on Primer

From: Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:41:43 -0800
To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-id: <43F23277.1050604@sun.com>

As of latest draft:

Section 1.1
We didn't resolve how to position the audience. Need to solidify and 
update first sentence in this section.

Section 2
a. The most important point of the first paragraph is sentence #4 that 
talks about specifying peer-to-peer protocols. Suggest rearrange.

b. "The distinction between SOA and Web Services is that the latter has 
its interface described using WSDL whereas the latter may not."
This statement doesn't gain anything and may provide other than the 
desired result. Suggest deletion.

c. "Because WS-CDL is not explicitly bound to WSDL it can play the same 
global model role for both SOA services and Web Services."
Unless changed there are no specific examples around non-WSDL based 
services like Java and this statement may
provide other than the desired result. How to handle is implementation 
specific. This comment is supported by what is described in Section 3.3.1.
Suggest deletion or explanation.

Section 2.1
a. "WS-CDL is a description and not an executable language, hence the 
term “Description” in it’s name. It is a language that can be used to 
unambiguously describe observable service collaborations, we might also 
refer to this a business protocols within and across domains of control 
that govern how the services interact."

Should be '...refer to this as a business protocol'.

b. "WS-CDL provides an unambiguous way of describing the ordering of 
message exchanges and in so doing ensure that the services that 
participate in the observable collaborations based on such vertical 
standards conform to the choreography description. You can think of it 
as a way to ensure that services are well-behaved with respect to their 
common goals across domains."

Unless we give specific example and a profile of such, uncertain what 
value this brings. The common goal point has already been made. Please 
explain the reference to vertical standards. Suggest deletion.

Section 3.1
a. Quote Timeout Collaboration
Whether or not the Quote Acceptance takes precedence may be relative to 
the parties involved.

b. "We hope that this becomes self evident to the reader as we walk 
through constructing the WS-CDL description for this example."
Suggest deletion, opinion.

Section 3.2
This section is really a basic definition. State as such (Degenerate 
case sounds negative). Suggest you use 'basic' for 'degenerate' on all 

Section 3.3.1
a. "In the example when the buyer requests a quote a message is sent 
from the buyer to the seller with the details of the product for which 
the quote is for."

Correct grammar.
'...with the details of the product included in the quote.'

b. "Each exchange names names the type of the thing to be exchanged and 
the direction of the exchange (e.g. a request, a response, or a fault)."
Delete duplicate 'names.'

a. Sentences too long. If you have a list of items with an example in 
parenthesis, use a bulleted list (and indent with an example). This 
allows reader to flow through the information.
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 19:41:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:09 UTC