W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

Suggested editorial changes to 2.6.1 The Feature Component

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:53:52 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309162020.023d8960@localhost>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

Re: 2.6.1 The Feature Component:
I think the semantics of the Feature Component need a little 
clarification.  In particular, I think we need to be clear about what 
obligations are placed on which agent (i.e., on the service or on the 
requester agent that uses the service).  Also, there is currently a 
sentence saying:
[[
Unless otherwise specified, recognizing a feature's URI is assumed to be 
semantically equivalent to understanding the feature's specification.
]]
It isn't clear to me what this sentence really means.  I suggest deleting it.
Finally, (following WebArch advice) we should say that there should be a 
document at the end of the URI, explaining that feature.

Section 2.6.1 currently states:
[[
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.

  Features in the Feature component are identified by their URI. Unless 
otherwise specified, recognizing a feature's URI is assumed to be 
semantically equivalent to understanding the feature's specification.

The properties of the Feature component are as follows:
     * {name} A URI as defined by [IETF RFC 2396].
     * {required} A boolean value.
]]

I suggest changing these paragraphs to something like:
[[
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 service supports the feature and may require a
requester agent that interacts with the service to use that feature.
Each Feature is identified by a URI.

The properties of the Feature component are as follows:
     * {name} A URI as defined by [IETF RFC 2396].  This URI SHOULD be
         dereferenceable to a document that directly or indirectly defines
         the meaning and use of the Feature that it identifies.
     * {required} A boolean value.  If the {require} property is true,
         then the requester agent MUST use the Feature that is identified
         by the {name} URI.  Otherwise, the requester agent MAY use the
         Feature that is identified by the {name} URI.  In either case,
         if the requester agent does use the Feature that is identified
         by the {name} URI, then the requester agent MUST obey all semantics
         implied by the definition of that Feature.
]]

I *think* these changes reflect the intent of the WG.  Do others agree?


-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 22:53:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT