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

RE: XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 15:22:51 -0700
Message-ID: <A5F46F7A688C084782E8C52B7636861313A4F9@sdebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for consideration of all comments and all fixes are acceptable 
to me.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-xml-protocol-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-xml-protocol-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Jonathan
Marsh
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:09 PM
To: Mahan Mike (Nokia-NRC/SanDiego); w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD






Thank you for the comments below, and for your patience with us in
resolving them.  In summary, we accepted all of your comments and have
implemented the fixes in the latest draft [1].  See below for further
details on each issue.

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

If you agree with our disposition of your comments, we'd like you to
acknowledge it within two weeks; otherwise we will assume you are
satisfied.  The WG plans to enter a second (short) Last Call period in
the near future, and we invite you to review that publication as well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of michael.mahan@nokia.com
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 10:35 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD
> 
> 
> 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.

We tracked the comment above as Issue LC48a [2].  The editors have
resolved it as you suggest, and carried spirit of the fix through the
name change of the Part 2 document and its merge with Part 3.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC48a

> 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.

We tracked the comment above as Issue LC48b [3].  The editors have
resolved it by referencing new sections describing the mapping in
greater detail.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC48b

> 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.

We tracked the comment above as Issue LC48c [3].  The editors have
resolved it as you suggest.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC48c


> 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?

We tracked the comment above as Issue LC48c [4].  The AD feature has
been substantially redesigned, and the functionality is now provided by
a soap:header element in the SOAP Binding [5].  The comment has thus
become moot.

[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC48d
[5]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.
html#soap-headers-decl

> Thanks,
> Mike Mahan of behalf of XMLP
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-extensions-20040803/
> 
Received on Friday, 13 May 2005 22:23:07 GMT

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