W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Typical SOA ... SOA Patterns

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 17:31:45 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040202144635.03637fe8@localhost>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Paul Denning" <pauld@mitre.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I agree with Roger.  The only one whose wording I have changed at all is 
the one that the WG said I should to wordsmith:

         @@[wordsmith:] What happens if two WSDL documents define the
         same service?

and it is now:

         What happens if two logical WSDL documents define the
         same service differently?

See 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html#unresolved_issues

At 08:18 PM 1/31/2004 -0600, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:

>I believe that the expansion of those @@ bullets was just intended to be
>a link back to some section of the document.  That is, the text goes
>through as is but it is a link back to something in the doc that is
>relevant to that issue, exact link to be determined by the editors.  I
>think usually to an "issue" flagged in the text.  As far as I know those
>@@'s were not an instruction to the editors to rework the text enclosed
>other than trivially.  I believe that those texts were discussed and
>agreed to.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
>Behalf Of Paul Denning
>Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:34 PM
>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Typical SOA ... SOA Patterns
>
>
>
>I was suggesting it as another issue, not knowing how the editors might
>expand those bullets.  I'll back off on calling it another issue.
>
>If the bullets are expanded by the editors, then perhaps a mention of
>SOA
>could be factored into this existing issue:
>
>@@The relationship between conversations, correlations and transactions
>and
>choreography is unclear and needs more work.
>
>For example, something like "resolution of these issues would also help
>clarify how web services relate to SOA."
>
>You could also add a statement like that to
>
>@@SOAP 1.2 and this architecture introduce the concept of
>"intermediaries",
>but this concept is not represented in WSDL 2.0.
>
>Paul
>
>At 01:05 PM 2004-01-30, David Booth wrote:
>
> >Paul,
> >
> >I'm unclear about your suggestion.  If it is about rewording one of the
> >existing unresolved issues to be clearer, then I agree with MikeC that
>we
> >have license to do this.  But if your suggestion is to *add* another
> >unresolved issue to the list, then I think it is too late.  We would
>need
> >WG agreement on that.
> >
> >
> >
> >At 10:40 AM 1/30/2004 -0500, Paul Denning wrote:
> >. . .
> >>------
> >>I am proposing
> >>
> >>@@Further work on the relationships between and patterns for using Web
> >>services and SOA.
> >>
> >>(Would be nice to add it if we can, but I understand if it is too
> >>late.)
> >>
> >>[1]
> >>http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-revie
>w2.html#id5212661
> >>
> >>Paul
> >
> >--
> >David Booth
> >W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> >Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 17:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:26 UTC