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

RE: Collected Requirements [comments/additions]

From: Sadiq, Waqar <waqar.sadiq@eds.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:25:41 -0600
Message-ID: <9C79F2D39765D411B18900508BE326A20A82ED06@USPLM208>
To: "Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Igor,

I think your requirements are quite interesting.  Would it be possible for
you to articulate the usage of these capabilities in terms of a real-life
usage.

Thanks,

 
_______________________________________________
Waqar Sadiq
 
EDS EIT EASI - Enterprise Consultant
MS: H3-4C-22
5400 Legacy Drive
Plano, Texas 75024
 
phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837)
e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com
fax: +01-972-605-4071
_______________________________________________
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:09 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Collected Requirements [comments/additions]

I have the following comments/additions for the requirements document.

This exists/presumed by WSDL 1.1, but I didn't see it mentioned in the req:

[DR??] Must be able to accommodate namespace clusters with data types
(schemas) and interface definitions (message/port/binding). I.e. service may
have several namespaces with types and several other namespaces with
message/port definitions. That is pretty important for expressing proper OO
model of a service. 
Very few framework implementations pay attention to this (in many cases
namespaces are flattened out which results in name conflicts). I guess it is
so because namespaces of various type definitions and message/port/binding
definitions have never been emphasized as a requirement really.

I support, but would like to add to the following reqs:

[DR038, may be others too] Ability to define events is a must. WSDL should
be very specific about events, defining a special type of a message or even
a separate definition entity. Currently it is missing in WSDL 1.1.

[DR075/6, may be others too] Versioning is definitely a must. Version tag (a
namespace URN, for instance) can be associated with a service, interface and
data types. This way a client can bind to a *one* service that implements
several versions of its interfaces which in turn may use different versions
of data schemas. The procedure of selecting a version has to be defined as
part of the standard.

[DR032] Extensible metadefinitions are the must. WSDL must be able to
include *typed* metadata attributes for any definition element: message,
part, port, operation, binding, service. The attributes may also be
hierarchical (i.e. defined in another namespace).

I would like to add these new reqs:

[DR??] WSDL must be able to describe references to other services (remote)
or other interfaces (ports, local to this WSDL doc) that can be used as
parts in message definitions. Currently (as of WSDL 1.1) message parts refer
to data types (described in one or the other schema). The part must also be
able to  refer to a remote service (WSDL URL/Service/Port) or a local
service/port qualified names. This has to be made clear as part of the
standard for WS clients and service providers.

[DR??] WSDL must define operations that can be carried out synchronously
(i.e. have a short expected reply cycle) and those messages that require
asynchronous notification (i.e. have long expected reply cycle). Ability to
differentiate such operations is a requirement of the service definition
rather than application architecture. For the async operations, providing a
reference to an event definition or status inquiry operation should be
required.

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:10 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Collected Requirements


Enclosed is a document that collects the requirements posted to this list,
for the purposes of assigning numbers to each requirement.
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 10:40:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:18 GMT