W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > September 2003

Re: request for explanatory wording for features

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:34:49 +0600
Message-ID: <045701c386af$fe4d3f60$72545ecb@lankabook2>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I included this wording in the draft pending more words.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:07 PM
Subject: RE: request for explanatory wording for features


> 
> 
> (writing this on a plane - not sure if I'll be able to get it
>  sent before Sunday night...)
> 
> Hi all:
> 
> > Feature proponents: Can someone please give some explanatory
> > sentences that explains what a feature is? The current wording
> > is, um, recursive:
> > 
> >     "A Feature component describes a particular feature that
> >      a Web service accepts or requires in particular interactions."
> > 
> > While its cool to have a recursive definition, it doesn't help
> > anyone understand what a feature is supposed to be. Maybe there's
> > wording in the SOAP spec we can borrow (or refer to). Can someone
> > take this on please? Glen?
> 
> Sure.  How about this (paraphrased from the SOAP spec):
> 
> A feature component describes an abstract piece of
> functionality typically associated with the exchange of
> messages between communicating parties.  Although WSDL
> poses no constraints on the potential scope of such
> features, examples might include "reliability",
> "security", "correlation", and "routing".  The presence
> of a feature component in a WSDL description indicates
> that the feature is either accepted or required in
> particular interactions.
> 
> This is a band-aid patch that clears up the particular wording you
> noted had problems.  I do plan to take a swing at creating some further
> explanatory text about features/properties in general, as discussed
> a couple of F2F's ago.
> 
> --Glen
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 13:35:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT