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

Re: Web Services Description: Requirements

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:00:42 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
At 06:11 PM 2/8/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>One of the first activities of the W3C Web Services Description Working
>Group is to draft a set of requirements and scenarios for the working
>group. Per our first teleconference, below is a draft list of
>requirements; the list is an individual contribution -- it does not
>reflect any decisions of the working group -- all mistakes are mine.
>Please review the list and provide feedback.
>. . .
>Must be able to describe simple one-way messages, i.e., either incoming
>or outgoing (event) messages.
>Must be able to describe simple request-response-fault message exchange.
>(Not a requirement to describe arbitrary message exchanges.)

Not sure what you mean by "fault" here.
Also, did you mean to include both request-response and solicit-response 
exchanges (as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_porttypes )?

>Must be able to describe sets of messages that form a logical group
>(i.e., a port type).
>Must be able to derive a port type from another by extension of the
>logical group of messages.

Do you mean creating a new port type from another by adding more message types?

>. . .
>Must be able to describe endpoint location using URIs.
>Must be able to describe address for specific port instances within a
>Must be able to separate design-time from run-time information.

What do you mean by "design-time" and "run-time" in relation to endpoints?

>. . .
>Compliance must not preclude building implementations that are resistant
>to attacks.

This sounds like a fairly weak requirement.  Can it be stronger?

David Booth
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 15:58:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:36 UTC