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

RE: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:25:55 -0800
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1065B6D6E@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Igor, thank you for clarifying.

Being able to describe expected response latency is an interesting
requirement. It varies across load, connection, and implementation (and
probably other factors too). In WSDL 1.1, we do not have a clean way to
describe information that varies either: (a) while a service is running
(due to load or connection) or (b) between semantically-identical
services (due to implementation).

I left R097 a [Should] in the current draft, but you should revisit this
during the upcoming face-to-face if you feel it is critical for the next
version of WSDL.

--Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:07 AM
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements

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 12:29:30 GMT

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