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

Re: Suggested editorial changes to 2.6.1 The Feature Component

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:05:04 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040309230319.04435ab8@localhost>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

[Oops, I hit the send button too soon.]

Similarly, for sec 2.7.1 The Property Component I suggest changing:
[[
The properties of the Property component are as follows:
     * {name} A URI as defined by [IETF RFC 2396].
     * {required} A boolean value.
     * {value constraint} A type definition constraining the
         value of the property.
]]

to something like:
[[
The properties of the Property 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 Property that it identifies.
     * {required} A boolean value.  If the {required} property is true,
         then the requester agent MUST use the Property that is identified
         by the {name} URI.  Otherwise, the requester agent MAY use the
         Property that is identified by the {name} URI.  In either case,
         if the requester agent does use the Property that is identified
         by the {name} URI, then the requester agent MUST obey all semantics
         implied by the definition of that Property.
     * {value constraint} A type definition constraining the
         value of the property.
]]



At 10:53 PM 3/9/2004 -0500, David Booth wrote:

>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

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 23:05:10 GMT

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