W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > July 2005

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

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:28:49 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5082B152C@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Further resolutions below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:47 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues
> 
> Le jeudi 05 mai 2005 ŗ 13:04 -0700, Jonathan Marsh a ťcrit :
> > I've consolidated earlier threads into this one since some of the recent
> changes have made prior resolutions obsolete.  We'd appreciate a definite
> response within two weeks, since the "agreement" state of some of these
> resolutions may otherwise be clear.
> 
> I accept as is resolutions on which I don't comment below, and would
> like feedback on the others. I'm unlikely to raise an objection on any
> of these, at least on this last call.
> 
> > [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html
> > >
> > > * 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.
> >
> > Tracked as LC5a [2], you previously accepted our resolution [3] though
> with concerns, but that text has undergone additional modification [4].
> We believe the additional definition of a conformant XML 1.0 WSDL document
> further addresses this issue.
> 
> Ok, the new text reads much better, indeed. I would have put that
> section in the section conformance rather than introduction, though.

The WG declined to move this at this point.

> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5a
> > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-
> comments/2004Sep/0005.html
> > [4]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?conten
> t-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#markup
> 
> > > * it would be interesting to list (maybe in an appendix) what
> > > constraints are not translated in the provided XML Schema
> >
> > Tracked as LC5c [7] you previously expressed agreement [8] with our
> resolution of this issue.
> >
> > [7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5c
> > [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-
> comments/2004Sep/0005.html
> >
> > > * you use both the expressions "a processor MUST fault" and "a
> > > processor
> > > MUST fail"; do they mean the same thing? In any case, I think you
> > > should
> > > clarify what is meant by those (i.e. what consist failing/faulting
> > > in?),
> > > and if they mean the same thing, only use one of the expressions;
> > > also,
> > > since the name 'fault' is used in a very well defined context in the
> > > spec, I think you should avoid using the verb 'fault' unless it
> > > relates
> > > to the said context; more generally, I think developing the notion of
> > > error handling for a WSDL processor would be benefitial
> >
> > Tracked as LC5f [13], this issue caused long discussion by the WG on
> what we mean by a conformant WSDL processor.  As a description language,
> the desired output of such a WSDL processor is not well defined and varies
> greatly between various classes of usage.  In the end, we were most
> comfortable dropping the notion of a conformant WSDL processor from the
> spec in favor of strengthening the definition of and meaning ascribed to
> conformant WSDL documents.  The final proposal we adopted is at [14] (we
> chose option A).
> 
> I think dropping the notion and conformance rules for a processor is
> probably a loss for the specification, but maybe the group doesn't have
> enough implementation experience to define one or several classes of
> products for WSDL processors? I guess the point I'm trying to make is,
> when a customer wants to buy an interoperable solution using WSDL,
> she'll need to know how to name this or this type of software, and this
> naming ought to be done in the specification IMO.

As you know we wrestled with this for a long time and were unable to clearly define the types of behaviors a processor of WSDL metadata might exhibit.  In general there simply isn't a standard output from most of the common types of WSDL processor.

> FWIW, the introduction still says "It also defines criteria for a
> conformant processor of this language" and there are still a few places
> where conformance requirements are set for processors (e.g. "All WSDL
> 2.0 processors MUST support XML Schema type definitions").

That should be fixed now.

> Dom
> 
> > [13] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
> > [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0099.html
> > > 4. http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
> --
> Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
> W3C/ERCIM
> mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 21:29:39 GMT

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