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

RE: SOAP UML diagram

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:53:50 -0700
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PEEBJKKCFNCENDPJDEMIOEBKDFAA.martin.chapman@oracle.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:19 AM
> To: Martin Chapman
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAP UML diagram
>
>
>
> Hi Martin.
>
> * Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com> [2003-06-06 12:22-0700]
> > updated diagram at:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jun/0011.html
>
> It looks good to me. A couple of comments below.
>
> - I don't see features linked to properties, or at least not directly.
>
> [1] says that "[a] feature may be expressed through multiple
> properties" and that "[p]roperties are named with URIs" and "property
> values SHOULD have an XML Schema [XML Schema Part 1] [XML Schema Part
> 2] type listed in the specification which introduces the property".
>
> I don't think that those are shown in the diagram.
>

I added a many to many association between feature and property.

I didn't add info about schema as I think it relates to a number of elements
 in the diagram and adding them in consistenly would make the diagram far
too messy IMHO.



> - My second comment is about ultimate receivers. I think that we need
>   to make the distinction between roles and nodes.
>
> A SOAP message has one sender, any number of intermediaries, and one
> ultimate receiver _identified_. They are naturally identified with
> URIs, and the ultimate receiver is:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver
>
> [2] reads: "a SOAP node is said to act in one or more SOAP roles, each
> of which is identified by a URI known as the SOAP role name."
>
> Now, the message could be multicasted to 5 different SOAP node, which
> could each act in the role of the ultimate receiver.
>
> You are saying that the path can have several ultimate receivers (as a
> result of your discussion with Jean-Jacques, I think), however the
> definition of path is:
>
> | 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.
>
> Basically, I think that just changing "*" next to "ultimate" by "1"
> would do the trick, since I don't think that the diagram prevents the
> message from being sent to several nodes, although it may not be
> explicit.

see the followup email for my response to this one.

>
> Also, "initial", "intermediary" and "ultimate" should probably be
> qualified as roles.

I'm reluctant to add a "role" box as i dont think it will add much, so i'm
not sure how we can further qualify this. Any suggestions?

>
> - Interesting question here to try and tie this to our other diagram:
>   what is the relationship between a SOAP node and an agent?
>
> I think that a SOAP node is an agent implementing the SOAP 1.2
> specification.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hugo
>
>   1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part2-20030507/#soapfeatspec
>   2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part1-20030507/#soaproles
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 12:53:53 GMT

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