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

RE: proposed revision text for sect 1.5.3

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:12:56 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, Mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com

Having reviewed the comments on section 1.5.3, how about the following rewrite:

1.5.3 Service Description
The mechanics of the message exchange are documented in a
Web service description (WSD). (See Figure 1.) The WSD is a
machine-processable specification of the Web service's interface.
It defines the message formats, datatypes, transport protocols, and
transport serialization formats that should be used between the
requester agent and the provider agent.
It also specifies one or more network locations ("endpoints")
at which a provider agent can be invoked, and may provide some
information about the message exchange pattern that is expected.

Is this acceptable?

At 08:04 PM 5/31/2003 -0400, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>1.5.3 Service Description
>The mechanics of the message exchange are documented in a
>Web service description (WSD). (See Figure 1.) The WSD is an extensible
>machine processable specification of the Web service's interface.
>It defines the messages that comprise the interface and any features
>associated with those messages, such as security and reliability.

I don't think we should be saying that *every* WSD defines the features 
associated with its messages.  Many/most Web services will have security 
and reliability characteristics that are not specified in their WSDs.

>It also defines the binding(s) of those messages and features to
>the serialization format(s), such as SOAP, and transfer or transport
>protocol(s), such as HTTP, supported by the Web service's endpoint(s).

I was specifically trying to keep this introduction short and easy to read, 
and avoid jargon (such as "binding") that hasn't been defined yet.

>It also specifies the set of endpoints that each expose a network
>addressable binding of the interface to the service functionality
>implemented by the provider agent.

At 10:11 AM 5/31/2003 -0400, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
>First off, I thought that the parenthetical "(partially)" was unnecessary
>for our
>purposes and somewhat derogatory towards WSDL which is still being
>developed and yet which is IMO sufficiently extensible to allow whatever
>might be missing to be added to the WSD by means of the extensibility

It wasn't derogatory toward WSDL.  The parenthetical "(partially)" was 
there to acknowledge the fact that a WSD does not necessarily describe ALL 
of the mechanics of the message exchange.  There could be constraints on 
the message formats, datatypes and protocols for a service that are not 
expressed in its WSD.

However, I don't mind removing the word "(partially)".

>Secondly, I was uncomfortable with "the specification of the formats,
>datatypes, and protocols..." as being somewhat vague and imprecise.

It was intentionally vague and imprecise.  I'd be wary of trying to put too 
much detail in the this section.  I'm trying to make this be an 
understandable, high level introduction to the rest of the document.  I'd 
prefer to leave the details (and hard stuff!) for the Concepts and 
Relationships section.

At 02:01 PM 5/31/2003 -0500, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:

>I believe that the "partially" refers to the concept, made very explicit
>by the Booth diagrams, that a full description of the Web service
>involves not only a machine readable component but also other
>information that David calls "semantics".


David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 20:13:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:07 UTC