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

Re: SOAP UML diagram

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:02:00 +0200
To: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030613100200.GF1193@w3.org>

* Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com> [2003-06-12 09:53-0700]
> > - 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.

Agreed.

[..]
> > 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?

Well, actually... 

* Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> [2003-06-12 21:21-0400]
[..]
> > A Message can have 0 senders and/or 0 receivers (although the underlying
> > thing has 1 on bothe).  Is this right?  If a message is anonymous does
> > it have zero senders or is the sender "anonymous"?
> 
> How can a message have zero senders? Certainly, a message could
> get lost so never actually find its destination, but you need to 
> have a sender, even if it remains anonymous, it still exists.

... this problem illustrates why I think the distinction between role
(abstract) and node/agent (concrete) is important in our diagram.

Abstractly:

In this case where a message comes in out of apparently nowhere, the
message still conceptually have a sender. A SOAP node took the role of
the message sender and sent the SOAP message.

And this reflects the definition of a SOAP message path ("the initial
SOAP sender, zero or more SOAP intermediaries, and an ultimate SOAP
receiver"; keeping in mind that there is an issue about the ultimate
receiver[2] as a result of our discussions here).

Concretely:

However, what is not known is which node took this role, i.e. the
identity of the node/agent who was acting in the role of the SOAP
sender is unknown.

That could be because of a network issue, because this node decided it
wanted to be anonymous, etc.

Regards,

Hugo

  2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2003Jun/0005.html
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 06:02:04 GMT

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