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

XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:35:04 -0700
Message-ID: <58D73BB53FF60440A12C02091C78F0B80574C3B1@sdebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org>

Hello WSD,

Here are XMLP comments following the WD review of WSDL Part 2 [1].

1) Editorial - mismatched document scope
WSDL Part 1 introduction describes Part 2 as "The WSDL Version 2.0 Part 2: 
Message Exchange Patterns specification [WSDL 2.0 Predefined Extensions] 
defines the sequence and cardinality of abstract messages sent or received 
by an operation." However the Part 2 abstract section describes itself 
more broadly than MEPS: "describes extensions for the Web Services Description 
Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 . These extensions include Message Exchange 
Patterns (MEPs), features, SOAP modules, and bindings of features". 

Recommendation: revise Part 1 Introduction text, moving the abstract text from 
Part 2 into the Intro of Part 1 for consistency and accuracy.


2) Clarification request in section 2 - 'Predefined Message Exchange Patterns'
The relationship between WSDL defined MEPs and SOAP defined MEPs is unclear: 
"WSDL message exchange patterns describe the interaction at the abstract 
(interface) level, which may be distinct from the pattern used by the underlying 
protocol binding (e.g. SOAP Message Exchange Patterns)." 

Recommendation: Could you clarify the relationship between abstract WSDL MEPs 
and SOAP bindings MEPs? An important aspect of the clarification is the disposition 
of WSDL-defined faults (Fault Propagation Rules) in light of the SOAP processing model.


3) Editorial - sections 2.1.[12]
The cardinality of faults is raised, yet the patterns do not define message 
cardinality. Perhaps this is an old artifact when message cardinality was defined. 

Recommendation: remove references to message cardinality.


4) Editorial - section 3.1 Application Data Feature
General editorial comment. The rationale for AD is 'to enable the description of 
application-defined additional data declarations outside of the normal data channel 
(e.g. the SOAP body).' This is in line with the notion of 3. Predefined Features: 
"(WSDL) features (hereafter 'features') define pieces of extended functionality which 
typically affect message exchanges. Examples may include "reliability", "security", 
or "correlation", among others." Yet the AD example is used to convey seemingly very 
SOAP body relevant data - 'isGoldClubMember' and 'promotionalCode' in a 'reserveCar' 
operation. 

Recommendation: use a more compelling example - or perhaps I am missing the point 
with AD?


Thanks,
Mike Mahan of behalf of XMLP


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-extensions-20040803/
Received on Monday, 27 September 2004 17:35:47 GMT

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