W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2002

RE: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG

From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:36:12 -0500
Message-ID: <40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07C59813@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com>
To: "'michael.mahan@nokia.com'" <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org


Thanks for your comments. Responses in-line.

-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   



-----Original Message-----
From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:28 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG 


Comments inline

>
>D-AC019
>	The Web Service Architecture enables conforming Web 
>Services to be
>reliable, stable, and evolvable over time.

Editorial comment - All three of these properties implies
a specific measure across time. So the 'over time' language is 
redundant.
<sd> I agree with you on "stable" and "evolvable."
"Reliability," in the mechanical world will include time factor
because of ageing, though in software, I am inclined to think
time is not a factor. We added "over time" for clarity, though
it may be redundant from some perspectives.
</sd>

>	
>AR019.1 Web Services conforming to Web Service Architecture 
>can be reliably
>discovered, accessed, and executed.
>
>D-AR019.1.1 Web Services Architecture will enable discovery of 
>a relocated
>Web Service.
>D-AR019.1.2 Web Service Architecture will enable the 
>availability of a Web
>Service conveyed, where possible.

I don't understand the 'conveyed' part and I disagree with the 
'where possible' language. I suggest removing the last 3 words.
<sd>
I guess the wording is not descriptive enough.
The idea is that the availability of a web service ("dinner available
only between 7PM-8PM") will be "conveyed" to service requesters whenever
possible so that they do not hang ("asking for dinner at 4AM"). We did not
think we should REQUIRE all web services to announce their availability, and

hence "where possible." We will think of an alternate text.
</sd>


>D-AR019.1.3 Web Services Architecture will incorporate support 
>for reliable
>messaging.

Editorial comment - Why not use the same language as above and say
"Web Services Architecture will enable reliable messaging."
<sd> Good suggestion. Will discuss in RTF </sd>

Also, reliable messaging is useful for all 3 of the interactions with 
a Web Service you have described. Is there any requirement for
specifically applying reliability to invocation/execution?
<sd> 19.1 includes discovery, access and invocation, and 19.3 applies to all
</sd>

>
>AR019.2 The Web Services Architecture enables a conforming Web Service
>implementation to be stable with respect to its definition.
>	D-AR019.2.1 A Web Service can be defined independent of its
>implementation.
>

I don't see how this achieves stability. This seems to me to belong 
more in the proposed 'loose-coupling' CSF.
<sd>
I am unaware of "loose-coupling" CSF - please provide pointer to the
requirements
document. If this is stated elsewhere, we will simply refer to it.
</sd>


>D-AR019.3 The Web Service Architecture enables a conforming Web Service
>definition to be evolvable.
>	
>	D-AR019.3.1 The Web Services Architecture is governed by a well
>defined versioning scheme for Web Services that is made available
>independent of the service.
>
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 19:36:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:01 GMT