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

RE: Comments on Draft WSA

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:24:36 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624690@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Another thought about the following:

3.3.4.2.1 - All your service description acquisitions, whether design or
runtime, are "pulls".  Surely there can be "pushes"?  I can email you my
WSDL.  Or there can be negotiations (human) from which the WSDL is part of
the expression of the agreement reached. 

I can even imagine a "reverse push" transmission of the WSDL, although maybe
it's a stretch.  Could you not have a web service that says, "Send me a WSDL
file telling me what parameters, of some limited set, you want to supply and
how you want your answer formatted.  You're the boss."

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:02 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Fw: Comments on Draft WSA



Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624 
----- Forwarded by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM on 10/30/2002 07:40 AM
----- 

"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> 


10/29/2002 05:03 PM 


To
Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS 

cc

bcc

Subject
FW: Comments on Draft WSA







 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)  
Sent:   Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:57 PM 
To:     'mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com' 
Subject:        Comments on Draft WSA 


Since I can't post any more to www-ws-arch let me just send some comments to
you, as an editor, for what they are worth.  Most of this is just going to
be wordsmithing or obvious things, and possibly you want to deal with these
things later, but might as well document them, even though I'm sure mostly
I'm telling you things you know. 


Basically I think  this document is shaping up very well, particularly in
terms of comprehensibility. 


2 (near end) - "MUST use SOAP and WSDL when appropriate" sounds sort of like
"must use them if you feel like it".  Don't you really mean "MUST use SOAP
and WSDL for messaging and descriptioin functions respectively"? 


3.1 sentence 2 - "must at least provide the components within the basic
architecture".  Unclear to me what you mean.  "The" is the problem, I think.
Is this "all", "some", "from the list"?   Is it the three below this
sentence?  All three?  Not being picky, honestly don't know what was
intended. 


3.1 - After bullet list and elsewhere in this section -- "software agents".
Doesn't "agent" have a rather particular meaning not quite what you are
talking about here?  Later it seems that the word "module" is used, which I
find less scary.  I associate "agent" with talking paper clips and ... well,
you know. 


3.1 - "The figure above" -- used twice with different descriptions but same
figure.   Then Fig 2 mentioned but can't find any candidate.  I think some
figures are missing or repeated inadvertently. 


3.3.3.2, 3.3.3.2.2 -- I think that these sections would benefit from some of
the recent stuff coming out of the choreography discussion.  In light of
some of those these don't seem quite right to me. 


3.3.4.2.1 - All your service description acquisitions, whether design or
runtime, are "pulls".  Surely there can be "pushes"?  I can email you my
WSDL.  Or there can be negotiations (human) from which the WSDL is part of
the expression of the agreement reached. 
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 17:25:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:10 GMT