W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text

From: GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US <shishir.garg@rd.francetelecom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:46:06 -0700
Message-ID: <037E7050631FD611AAFD0002A509146AFABD6A@U-MAIL2>
To: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
See below for comments. 

I'll send final text to the editors list after removing the intent phrasing.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:55 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text
> 
> 
> I agree, I don't think that this language is very meaningful. 
> However, it 
> is unclear to me
> (appologies for not following this thread more closely!) why 
> we would want 
> or need to articulate
> intent at all. Specifically, there may be intermediaries 
> along a message 
> path of which 
> the message sender is oblivious. Does this mean that they 
> aren't message 
> receivers? Not according
> to SOAP1.2[1]. Of course, SOAP1.2 uses the terms SOAP sender and SOAP 
> receiver, but I fail to 
> understand why we continue to be tempted to define a whole new set of 
> terms that IMO will
> only serve to confuse matters considerably and may make it 
> awkward at best 
> for us to map
> the architecture to SOAP which even if we do not limit the 
> scope of the 
> architecture will be
> a necessity IMO.
> 

I am not keen to defend the need to articulate the intent in the message
sender and receiver definitions, they were already defined in the original
text and I did not want to remove something that someone else already had in
the draft doc.

However, I would personally be in favor of removing the intent text also if
the original author(s) are fine with it. 

> This gets to the crux of my continuing concern that we are 
> not limiting 
> the scope of our
> work to WSDL and SOAP plus other stuff that builds on their concepts.
> 
> The terms/concepts that are being defined here are inconsistent with 
> similar terms in
> SOAP1.2. For instance, the term "message receiver" is being 
> defined in 
> terms of intent of
> some (or the:-) "message sender". I for one think that this 
> is misguided. 
> Whether a
> message is received by some agent because it was intended or not is 
> irrelevant, it was
> still received and the agent that received it should be 
> somehow considered 
> in our architecture
> or we can say nothing about it and make no constraints upon it.
> 

I agree that we should "reuse" concepts that SOAP has already established,
but not use exactly the same terms, as the architecture should not be
explicitly modelled around SOAP's messaging framework. So, rather than using
SOAP sender, Message Sender is an appropriate concept to capture.

In fact, in 2.3.2, the text currently in place 2.3.2.5 on Service
Description does not mention WSDL specifically. So why should the message
oriented architecture be based specifically on SOAP?

So, +1 to generalize terms.

> If we want to generalize terms because we still haven't come 
> to complete 
> consensus
> as to whether we are scoping our architecture to WSDL and 
> SOAP plus other 
> goop, then
> why not look to SOAP1.2 first before simply making stuff up.
> 
> SOAP1.2 defines SOAP sender, SOAP receiver and SOAP intermediary as:
> 
> SOAP sender 
> A SOAP node that transmits a SOAP message.
> SOAP receiver 
> A SOAP node that accepts a SOAP message.
> SOAP intermediary 
> A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender and is 
> targetable from within a SOAP message. It processes the SOAP 
> header blocks 
> targeted at it and acts to forward a SOAP message towards an 
> ultimate SOAP 
> receiver.
> 
> These terms could easily be generalized as:
> 
> message sender 
> An agent that transmits a message.
> message receiver 
> An agent that accepts a message.
> intermediary 
> An intermediary is an agent that is both a message receiver 
> and a message 
> sender. It may processes messages and acts to forward 
> messages towards an 
> ultimate message receiver along the message path.
> 
> Then, of course we would need/want to define the other 
> missing terms that 
> are found in the SOAP1.2 spec:
> 
> SOAP message path 
> The set of SOAP nodes through which a single SOAP message 
> passes. This 
> includes the initial SOAP sender, zero or more SOAP 
> intermediaries, and an 
> ultimate SOAP receiver.
> Initial SOAP sender 
> The SOAP sender that originates a SOAP message at the 
> starting point of a 
> SOAP message path.
> Ultimate SOAP receiver 
> The SOAP receiver that is a final destination of a SOAP 
> message. It is 
> responsible for processing the contents of the SOAP body and any SOAP 
> header blocks targeted at it. In some circumstances, a SOAP 
> message might 
> not reach an ultimate SOAP receiver, for example because of a 
> problem at a 
> SOAP intermediary. An ultimate SOAP receiver cannot also be a SOAP 
> intermediary for the same SOAP message (see 2. SOAP Processing Model).
> 
> These could be generalized as:
> 
> Message path 
> The set of agents through which a single message passes. This 
> includes the 
> initial message sender, zero or more intermediaries, and an ultimate 
> message receiver.
> Initial message sender 
> The message sender that originates a message at the starting 
> point of a 
> message path.
> Ultimate message receiver 
> The message receiver that is a final destination of a message. It is 
> responsible for processing the contents of the message. In some 
> circumstances, a message might not reach an ultimate message 
> receiver, for 
> example because of a problem at an intermediary. An ultimate message 
> receiver cannot also be an intermediary for the same message 
> 
> > 
> > Yin Leng
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US 
> [mailto:shishir.garg@rd.francetelecom.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2003 3:49 AM
> > To: Husband, Yin-Leng; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> > Subject: RE: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text
> > 
> > hi, inline comments....
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Husband, Yin-Leng [mailto:yin-leng.husband@hp.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:14 PM
> > To: GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Cc: Husband, Yin-Leng
> > Subject: RE: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text
> > Hi Shishir,
> > 
> > 2.2.26 Message recipient
> > 
> > RE: 2.2.26.1 Summary
> > The proposed modification to 2.2.26.1 would lose some essential 
> relationship information relating 
> > the message being consumed to its message sender.  I 
> suggest retaining 
> the current text. 
> >  The original text in the 2003/07/01 version was:
> > "A message recipient is an agent that is intended - by the 
> message's 
> sender - to consume the message."
> > 
> > All I changed there was replaced "message's sender" with "message 
> sender" in order to use the 
> > concept of a message sender directly as defined in 2.2.27. 
> I think this 
> change emphasized the 
> > definition of the relationships based on the concepts being 
> defined. 
> What info has been lost so I 
> > can capture it?
> > 
> > RE: 2.2.26.3 Description
> > I suggest that either the paragraph discussing 
> intermediaries be dropped 
> from this section or re-
> > worded in the context of message recipient.
> > Since "a message recipient is an agent", the text for this section 
> (second sentence) should not be
> > "The message recipient of an agent ..." 
> > 
> > I was a little unsure of the original text, but thought the "of an 
> agent" notion was meant to 
> > capture the fact that an agent can be many things, and here we're 
> discussing the message recipient
> > part of the agent... I am happy to drop the "of an agent" 
> in both 26 and 
> 27.
> > In addition, I propose removing references to "anonymous" 
> (which means 
> unknown source) in this 
> > section.  Propose the following modified text.
> > The message recipient is the agent that the sender intends 
> the message 
> to be consumed by.  The 
> > message recipient may be identified by its agent identifier 
> in a message 
> envelope; however, the 
> > agent identifier of the message recipient is not required 
> to be supplied 
> in the case of broadcast-
> > style interactions.
> > In general, a message may be intended for more than one recipient. 
> Furthermore, in some cases, the
> > sending agent may not have direct knowledge of the identity of the 
> message recipient (for example,
> > in multicast or broadcast situations).
> > Optionally,
> > Messages may also be passed through intermediaries that 
> process aspects 
> of the message; typically 
> > by examining the message headers. The message recipient may 
> or may not 
> be aware of processing by 
> > such intermediaries. 
> > I agree with these changes, and don't mind not mentioning anonymous 
> interactions, but at the same 
> > time, it's probably useful to relate the "Message 
> recipient" concept 
> with the "Intermediary" 
> > concept and then the anonymous interactions can be implied. 
> So, I would 
> suggest keeping the 
> > optional text suggested by Yin-Leng.
> > 
> > 2.2.27 Message sender
> > 
> > RE: 2.2.27.3 Description
> > 
> > I suggest that either the paragraph discussing 
> intermediaries be dropped 
> from this section or that
> > similar paragraphs be present in both  message recipient 
> and message 
> sender sections. 
> > 
> > As I just wrote above, lets add the intermediary text in 
> for both sender 
> and recipient. 
> > Propose the following modified text consistent with 
> proposed 2.2.26.3 
> text.
> > A message sender is the agent that originally caused a new 
> message to be 
> created and sent to an 
> > agent. The message sender may be identified by its agent 
> identifier in a 
> message envelope; 
> > however, the agent identifier of the message sender may not 
> be available 
> in the case of anonymous 
> > interactions.
> > Optionally,
> > Messages may also be passed through intermediaries that 
> process aspects 
> of the message; typically 
> > by examining the message headers. The sending agent may or 
> may not be 
> aware of processing by such 
> > intermediaries.
> > Yin Leng
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US 
> [mailto:shishir.garg@rd.francetelecom.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2003 4:08 PM
> > To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> > Subject: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text
> > 
> > hi, per the last concall, I have taken a look at the 
> existing text for 
> 2.2.26 and 2.2.27 and 
> > propose only minor modifications to the original text as 
> follows. Also, 
> there is some text 
> > regarding intermediaries that I think is more appropriate 
> to associate 
> with the sender's description:
> > 2.2.26 Message recipient 
> > 2.2.26.1 Summary 
> > A message recipient is an agent that is intended - by a 
> message sender - 
> to consume the message. 
> > 2.2.26.2 Relationships to other elements 
> > a message recipient is 
> > an agent 
> > 2.2.26.3 Description 
> > The message recipient is the agent that the sender intends 
> the message 
> to be consumed by. The 
> > message recipient of an agent may be represented as the agent's 
> identifier in a message envelope; 
> > however, in the case of anonymous or broadcast-style 
> interactions, the 
> recipient of a message may 
> > not be available to the sender, and vice-versa.
> > In general, a message may be intended for more than one recipient. 
> Furthermore, in some cases, the
> > sending agent may not have direct knowledge of the identity of the 
> message recipient (for example,
> > in multi-case situations or in the case anonymous 
> interactions with a 
> service provider.)
> > 
> 
> > 2.2.27 Message sender 
> > 2.2.27.1 Summary 
> > A message sender is the agent that originates a message. 
> > 2.2.27.2 Relationships to other elements 
> > a message sender is 
> > an agent 
> > 2.2.27.3 Description 
> > A message sender is the agent that originally caused a new 
> message to be 
> created and sent to an 
> > agent. The message sender of an agent may be represented as 
> the agent's 
> identifier in a message 
> > envelope; however, in the case of anonymous interactions 
> the originator 
> of a message may not be available.
> > Messages may also be passed through intermediaries that 
> process aspects 
> of the message; typically 
> > by examining the message headers. The sending agent may or 
> may not be 
> aware of such intermediaries.
> > -#-#-# 
> > Couple of additional comments: 
> > * I would suggest the Intermediary text in 2.2.11.1 Summary read: 
> > An intermediary is a message processing node that does not 
> necessarily 
> represent the message's 
> > intended recipient; but which, none-the-less may process 
> some aspect of 
> the message.
> > * Does 2.2.26.3 need to mention intermediaries at all? 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 21:46:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT