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

Re: new editor's draft of WSA available

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:24:49 +0200
Message-ID: <3DB8FFD1.3070909@crf.canon.fr>
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Chris et al,

Some further comments on the draft.

Jean-Jacques.

==============

Section 1.1 The Need for an Architecture
-----------------------------------------

<minor>
For consistency with:
   "extensible message framework (SOAP)"
I suggest adding "(WSDL)" to:
   "interface definition language"
i.e.:
   "interface definition language (WSDL)"
</minor>


Section 3.1 Basic Architecture
------------------------------

<minor>
MEPs are defined at least three times:
   "Requester and providers interact using one or more
    message exchange pattern (MEPs)."
and:
   "message exchange patterns (MEP)s that
    group basic messages into higher-level interactions"
and again:
   "Service requesters and providers interact by
    exchaging messages, which may be aggregated to form
    message exchange patterns (MEPs)."
</minor>

<minor>
Similarly, the extended Web services architecture is defined at 
least twice:
   "details how messages may carry context to support
    security, transactions, orchestration"
and:
   "may be extended to include features that
    ensure privacy, coordinate transactions, orchestrate"
</minor>

<important>
More importantly, the two sentences give above give the 
impression that the extended architecture is provided only 
through specialized MEPs; other types of features (modules) are 
completely left out.
</important>

<minor>
I don't think the paragraph starting with the following sentence 
is very clear: "For example, an XML message may have or more 
content models associated with it"
</minor>

<moderate>
More imporantly, the terminology used used in the paragraph cited 
above is at odds with that of SOAP (and possibly that of WSDL). 
For example, "content model" vs. "module", "endpoint" vs. "node", 
"provider" vs. "ultimate receiver". This is likely to create 
confusion.
</moderate>

<moderate>
The following sentence gives the impression that, to access a 
service, you always need to be a provider as well: "that function 
as both requesters and providers".
</moderate>

<important>
I disagree with the following sentence, both from a WSDL and SOAP 
perspective:
   "The request/response pattern [should be MEP] is also often
    called the remote procedure call (RPC)."
Document exchanges work with request-response as well.
</important>


Section 3.2.1 Features
----------------------

<moderate>
"Here is a partial list of features:"
Why a partial list? Why a list at all?
</moderate>

<minor>
The description of list items is very terse.
</minor>


Section 3.3 Web Services Stacks
--------------------------------

<minor>
The appearance of the acronym "SOA" first comes as a shock: where 
did the "P" disappear? It might be worth changing the acronym to 
something less akin to "SOAP".
</minor>
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 04:24:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT