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

RE: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements

From: VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1) <william_vambenepe@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:09:55 -0500
Message-ID: <155C6BB395577C4EA8F65A9ADA9F2104DA87E9@xcup01.cup.hp.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

I agree with Igor that the requirement he describes is important. I think it
is the same requirement I had in mind when proposing R110 (and use case
UC0033, of which I will soon propose a clearer description). It is unclear
to me that R097 in its current form specifies that the service can provide
an indication of the expected processing time, but if it is amended to
include this (or if the rest of you agree that it currently does) then I
think that we should remove R110 as R097 does the job in a more general way.

In this case, I second Igor's suggestion to make R097 a "must".

Regards,

William


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Schlimmer [mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:26 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements
> 
> 
> 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 14:10:35 GMT

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