W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > September 2004

RE: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:34:21 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA204C5ACEB@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thanks for your comments.  Our first few resolutions below, more to follow in the coming weeks.  We will assume you accept these resolutions if we don't receive an explicit acknowledgement by 1 October.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:48 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues

> Conformance issues (these comments have been mostly inspired from specGL
> [4]):
> 
> * Document conformance
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#markup
>  "Note that the WSDL language is defined in terms of the component model
> defined by this specification. As such, it is explicitly NOT a
> conformance requirement to be able to process documents encoded in a
> particular version of XML, in particular XML 1.1 [XML 1.1]." is both
> very hard to read, and probably in contradiction with the header
> "document conformance"; I guess this needs clarification
> It is particularly unclear to me that defining conformance for an
> "element information item" has any sense at all.

The WG agreed to change the above paragraph to something like:
  "Since this spec is defined in terms of the infoset, it is not 
  a requirement to support any particular serialization of the 
  infoset.  For instance, a conformant processor might only 
  support XML 1.0."

> * Also, section 1.2 ("Notational conventions") adds the definition of
> "valid/not valid WSDL document", with important conformance
> requirements. I suggest it should be moved to the conformance section,
> and the normative schema should be referenced from there. Additionally,
> while using the content-negotiated URI as a namespace URI is a good
> idea, I suggest referring explicitly the schema URI (with the .xsd
> extension) would be better when talking about the schema itself.

The WG agreed to remove discussion of validity from the table in section 1.2 (this is redundant with the Conformance section), add a link to the schema from the conformance section, and add .xsd extension to all links to the schemas.

> * it would be interesting to list (maybe in an appendix) what
> constraints are not translated in the provided XML Schema

The WG did not agree to add such an appendix, but we feel we are addressing the spirit of your comment in other ways.  We have initial buyoff and are currently prototyping the use of a formal notation (Z) directly in the spec to describe the additional constraints.  There are Z tools for consistency checking which we can apply to the spec.  The constraints, once validated for completeness and consistency, will be collected into a separate Test Assertion Document which will guide us in the development and evaluation of our test suite. 
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:34:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT