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

FW: new section 2.4.1.1

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:50:27 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E8BB0AE8@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC362 [1].  The WG accepted your proposal

 

As we plan to go to CR shortly, if we don't hear from you within 10
days, we will assume this satisfies your concern.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC362

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:31 AM
To: Amelia A Lewis
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: new section 2.4.1.1

 


Amy, 

Thx. I corrected that typo. 

I have another question. In Part 1 we refer to the fault propagation
rulesets (FPR) by names like "message-triggers-fault" but these names
are not used in Part 2, i.e. Part 2 just says "Message Triggers Fault".
Also, FPRs are an extension point. Should we introduce IRIs for the
FPRs? These IRIs wouldn't appear in any WSDL 2.0 document. However, it
seems consistent to use IRIs for them since we do this for other
extension points. The MEP templates have a slot [fault ruleset
reference] which would be used to specify the IRI for the FPR. The
obvious choices for the IRIs are: 

http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/fault-replaces-message 
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/message-triggers-fault 
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/no-faults 

These would tie in better with the names we use in Part 1. 

Also, from an editorial point of view, it seems a little odd to refer to
these FPRs in Part 1 since they are defined in Part 2. This does make
Part 1 more self contained. An alternate organisation would be to move
all the constraints related to the specific FPRs into Part 2 where they
are defined. This would have the added benefit of simplifying the XML
mapping rules, i.e. we would not mention the constraints in the XML
mapping section. We would only mention them in Part 2 and just in terms
of the component model. 

To summarize: Part 1 should not refer to specific fault propagation
rulesets. This information should only be in Part 2 where the fault
propagation ruleset is defined. Part 1 should talk about generic fault
propagation rulesets and message exchange patterns. The benefit is that
Part 1 is simpler and the spec overall is more modular. 

FYI, I've added the Z Notation for MEPs.[1] 

[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-z.html#Me
ssageExchangePattern 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 



Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

10/27/2005 03:07 PM 

To

www-ws-desc@w3.org 

cc

 

Subject

new section 2.4.1.1

 

 

 





Responding to Arthur's request for feedback on the new section on MEPs
in part 1:

Paragraph two, last sentence contains the word "place" which should be
"placeholder".

Paragraph three makes reference to each of the Fault Propagation
rulesets: should these rulesets be linked to here where they are
mentioned?

Otherwise, I'm fairly comfortable with this explication.  It's a bit
odd to see this information presented in a different, summary fashion,
but the summary seems reasonably accurate.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 14 November 2005 23:05:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT