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

RE: Editorial issue - Terminology for Operation types

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 11:53:59 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020606115305.027be1f8@localhost>
To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I suggest that the old terms be deprecated.

At 09:52 AM 5/30/2002 -0700, Dale Moberg wrote:
>I agree with this editorial change and
>with its rationale. I think additional
>reasons for making such a change had been
>previously suggested in a message from Sanjiva.
>
>One other question I have is whether the WSDL 1.1
>terminology--"One-way", "Request-response",
>"Solicit-response" and "Notification"--
>can be removed or at least deprecated.
>
>The "Request-Response" pattern can
>be variously realized: as a pair
>of Inputs, (polarity switch) as
>a pair of Outputs, or as specified
>as an Input-Output. It is contentious
>to pretend that one interface type
>is "the" Request-Response pattern.
>It also tends to presume that
>a "synchronous" communication choice is
>essential to the RequestResponse
>pattern, and it is not.
>
>As far as WSDL
>entering into the MEP business,
>I think it is mixing layers,
>and that distinct specifications
>from other W3C workgroups should be
>created to focus on those layers
>of description. Given the rate
>of movement here, it might be
>pragmatic to divide and conquer.
>
>[Another 400 messages to read.]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:53 AM
>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: Editorial issue - Terminology for Operation types
>
>
>This is an editorial issue regarding the terms that we use for the four
>kinds of operations or message exchange patterns described in WSDL:
>"One-way", "Request-response", "Solicit-response" and "Notification".
>
>These four terms are not very consistently selected, nor are they
>clearly
>descriptive of their purpose. For example:
>
>1. The word "response" is overloaded.  From the perspective of a Web
>Service that is interacting with a Client, we have the following terms
>defined:
>
>"Request-response" represents an input-output pair of messages
>"Solicit-response" represents an output-input pair of messages
>
>These terms use different words for the initiating message, depending on
>
>whether the respondent is the Client or the Web Service: "Request" if
>the
>initiator is the Client; "Solicit" if the initiator is the Web
>Service.  However, they use the same word ("response") for the returned
>message, even though the  respondent differs.  It would be editorially
>clearer to be consistent.
>
>2. As an operation type, the term "One-way" is not very clear.  It does
>describe a message exchange pattern involving only one message that is
>sent
>in one direction (from Client to Web Service).  But the "Notification"
>operation also describes a message exchange pattern involving only one
>message that is sent in one direction -- in this case from Web Service
>to
>Client.  Again it would be editorially better to use terms that are more
>
>consistent and/or more distinctly descriptive.
>
>                                   -----
>
>As a solution to these problems, I would suggest using the terms
>"Input",
>"Input-Output", "Output-Input", and "Output" instead of the terms
>"One-way", "Request-response", "Solicit-response" and "Notification".
>In
>other words, define the following four terms for the four kinds of
>operations:
>
>Input (a/k/a "One-way"). The endpoint receives a message.
>Input-Output (a/k/a "Request-response"). The endpoint receives a
>message,
>and sends a related message.
>Output-Input (a/k/a "Solicit-response"). The endpoint sends a message,
>and
>receives a related message.
>Output (a/k/a "Notification"). The endpoint sends a message.
>
>I think this change would help make the specification simpler, clearer
>and
>more consistent.
>
>
>--
>David Booth
>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 11:52:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT