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

Re: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:56:35 +0100
Message-ID: <3E6F0453.1050405@crf.canon.fr>
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Hi Hugo,

For binding, have you looked at:
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html#Binding>

Jean-Jacques.

Hugo Haas wrote:
>>"binding"
>>=========
>>I think you need to differentiate between:
>>
>>a) the binding of SOAP to HTTP, i.e. how one uses HTTP for 
>>transferring a SOAP envelope over the wire (see SOAP Part 2, 
>>section 7, SOAP HTTP Binding [1]).
>>
>>b) the WSDL SOAP binding, i.e. how an abstract WSDL message is 
>>mapped to SOAP (see WSDL Part 2, section 2, SOAP Binding [2]).
>>
>>Currently, b) is not covered by the glossary. "binding, 1." 
>>describes an abstract (WSDL) binding. I suggest you add "binding, 
>>1'." to describe a concrete (WSDL) binding.
> 
> 
> I couldn't find a good way to define a concrete WSDL binding. I looked
> at the WSDWG documents and couldn't find a definition either. Is there
> one somewhere?
> 
> I ended up putting:
> 
>   The mapping on an abstract description of a message to a concrete
>   protocol.
> 
> But I am happy to get something better.
> 
> 
>>"endpoint"
>>==========
>>The word "binding" is ambiguous. I suggest you refer specifically 
>>to a "concrete binding" (definition 1'. above).
> 
> 
> I added an editor's note but haven't made the change yet because I am
> not totally satisfied by the term "concrete binding".
> 
> Again, this is a WSDWG definition. Have these definitions been
> updated?
> 
> 
>>"safe" and/or "idempotent"
>>==========================
>>I suggest you point to add a link to SOAP 1.2 Part 2, section 
>>4.1.2 Distinguishing Resource Retrievals from other RPCs [3].
> 
> 
> We definitely need to talk about this, but my feeling is that this
> discussion, and reference, should be in the architecture document, not
> in the glossary.
> 
> 
>>"state"
>>=======
>>Shouldn't there be a definition for a state machine, as used, for 
>>example, to describe SOAP bindings?
> 
> 
> I agree that there should actually be a reference somehow. The MTF has
> come up with a state machine for the life cycle of a Web service too,
> so I will work on that while working on the management definitions.
> 
> In the meantime, I have added an editor's note.
> 
> 
>>"intermediary"
>>==============
>>Any reason not to refer to the SOAP definition?
>>
>>"node"
>>======
>>Ibid.
> 
> 
> I agree with MarkB that those terms need to be defined in a general
> way. I have added a reference to the SOAP definition for intermediary.
> It was missing.
> 
> 
>>"requester"
>>===========
>>Ibid. Why use a term different than "sender"? The same comment 
>>probably applies to "provider".
> 
> 
> Hmmm... sender is really at the message level whereas requester is at
> a more conceptual level.
> 
> 
>>"role"
>>======
>>Ibid.
> 
> 
> Please see David B's definition.
> 
> 
>>References
>>==========
>>The bibref entry for WSD Reqs points to SOAP 1.2 Part 1 (and 
>>actually an old version).
> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
>   4. http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12-bindings/
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 04:56:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:16 GMT