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

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

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:04:43 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5076F9AD4@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thank you for your comments on the WSDL 2.0 spec.  We have (at last) implemented fixes that we believe successfully address each of the comments below.

The latest editorial draft incorporating those fixes is at [1].  We expect to do a refresh publication next week, and a second Last Call publication early this summer.  We welcome your further review of these drafts.

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.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html

> -----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
> 
> After having reviewed http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/, I
> collected a (rather largish) set of comments; overall, I found the doc
> very clear and precise; having more examples embedded would help
> understanding and reading it, although I understand a primer is being
> developed.
> 
> I've split my detailed comments in 3 parts:
> - conformance issues
> - technical issues
> - editorial issues
> 
> This mail has the first set, I'll send separate mails for each set.
> 
> 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.

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.

[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?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#markup

> * 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.

Tracked as LC5b [5] you previously expressed agreement [6] with our resolution of this issue.

[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5b
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0005.html

> * 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

> * Processor conformance
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#processor
> """This section defines a class of conformant WSDL processors that are
> intended to act on behalf of a party that wishes to make use of a Web
> service"""
> I suggest that you give a specific label to this class of WSLD
> processors, ŗ la "WSDL 2.0 requesting processor" - you'll probably
> find
> something better.

Tracked as LC5d [9] you previously expressed agreement [10] with our resolution of this issue.  However, in resolution of LC5f, we have removed the concept of a conformant WSDL processor altogether.  If you agree with our resolution of that comment, this one becomes moot.

[9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5d
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0039.html


> * "a conformant WSDL processor MUST accept any legal WSDL document":
> what is a legal WSDL document? I suggest saying "conformant WSDL
> document" - but I'm still unclear whether you define that at all in
> the
> section above

Tracked as LC5e [11] you previously expressed agreement [12] with our resolution of this issue, which is substantially unchanged in the current draft.

[11] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5e
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0039.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).

[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

> * "a conformant WSDL processor MUST either agree to fully abide": I
> think this an abusive usage of MUST, since "agreeing" is not an
> operation that a WSDL process does; I would suggest "a conformance
> WSDL
> processor MUST immediately cease processing (fault) if it doesn't
> agree
> to fully abide ...."

Tracked as LC5g [15] you previously expressed agreement [16] with our resolution of this issue.  However, in resolution of LC5f, we have removed the concept of a conformant WSDL processor altogether.  If you agree with our resolution of that comment, this one becomes moot.

[15] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5g
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0039.html

> * "that it does not choose to implement." -> "it chooses not to
> implement", or maybe "it doesn't implement"

Tracked as LC5h [17] we believe the resolution to LC5f makes this point moot.

[17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5h

> * the "Note:" under this defines conformance requirements for a
> provider
> agent, which is out of scope for the given section; I suggest creating
> a
> different section, even if that's the only requirement for it

Tracked as LC5i [18], you objected [19] to our previous resolution of this issue.  We believe the point is now moot given the resolution of LC5f.

[18] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5i
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0039.html

> * the section 6.1 on mandatory extensions adds requirements both for
> requesting and providing processors; most are duplicated in the
> conformance section, but I think a few are not (e.g. "the provider
> agent
> MUST support every extension, Feature or Property that is declared as
> optional in the WSDL document"); I suggest they should be added to the
> conformance section
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#mandatoryext

Tracked as LC5j [20], you objected [21] to our previous resolution of this issue.  We believe the point is now moot given the resolution of LC5f.

[20] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5j
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0039.html

> *likewise, section 4.1 makes a suggestion for processors:
> "Processors are encouraged to keep track of the source of component
> definitions, so that multiple, mutual, and circular includes do not
> require establishing identity on a component-by-component basis."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#includes
> Maybe this could be added as a SHOULD in the conformance section

Tracked as LC5k [22], you objected [23] to our previous resolution of this issue.  We believe the point is now moot given the resolution of LC5f.

[22] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5k
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0039.html

> * section 1.1 reads "All parts of this specification are normative,
> with
> the EXCEPTION of notes, pseudo-schemas, examples, and sections
> explicitly marked as "Non-Normative"."; some of the "Note:"s include
> normative-like language, e.g.
> "Support for the W3C XML Schema Description Language [XML Schema:
> Structures],[XML Schema: Datatypes] is required of all processors."
> or
> "If a WSDL document declares an extension or feature as optional, then
> if that extension or feature could apply to messages sent by the
> provider agent as well, then the provider agent MUST NOT send any
> messages that requires the requester agent to support that extension
> or
> feature."
> Please fix.

Tracked as LC5l [24], you previously agreed [25] to our previous resolution of this issue.  While parts of this resolution remain as necessary parts of strengthening the notion of document conformance, others have been made moot by the resolution of LC5f.

[24] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5l
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0039.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 Thursday, 5 May 2005 20:04:50 GMT

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