W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

RE: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements

From: Sedukhin, Igor <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:07:12 -0500
Message-ID: <849C1D32E4C7924F854D8A0356C72A9E0305298A@usilms08.ca.com>
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Thanks, Jeff.

Here is my comment on 

>R097: I'd suggest change it to "Must". (Now, this is NOT covered by R036!)
>[jeffsch: I agree that this is part of a general Web Service definition, 
>but I don't agree that this is appropriate to describe in WSDL; 
>it seems to border on orchestration.]

I believe that description of operation and thus characteristics of
operation are part of WSDL. Whether it is used for orchestration or
otherwise does not matter. Sync/Async and expected response latency is a
characteristic of the operation itself rather than flow definition.

In fact, I envision other use for R097 than just orchestration. For example,
I may have a UI app running on wireless device that would switch to alert
mode if operation is async and the expected reply latency is more than, say,
10 seconds.

R097 adds a lot to the ability to create intelligent apps using WSs. I'd
suggest making it a must for WSDL 2.0.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Schlimmer [mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:21 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements


Igor, thank you for the clarification. Comments and questions below in
[square brackets].

--Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 3:30 PM
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements

I'd like to suggest the following changes to the reqs that I have initially
submitted:

R093: please move it to section "4.5 Messages and Types".
[jeffsch: Done.]

R096: It says (Merged in R085.). From the existing wording of R085 I don't
exactly see how they were merged. I suggest either rephrase R085 to clearly
state the requirement to cover references to other services or leave R096 if
the intention of R085 is different.
[jeffsch: Removed the recommendation to reject R096 and removed modification
from R085.]

R094: It is covered by R036. Can be rejected for that reason.
[jeffsch: Done.]

R097: I'd suggest change it to "Must". (Now, this is NOT covered by
R036!)
[jeffsch: I agree that this is part of a general Web Service definition, but
I don't agree that this is appropriate to describe in WSDL; it seems to
border on orchestration.]

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 10:07:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT