W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2005

Re: new section 2.4.1.1

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:30:38 -0500
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1A71342A.00469750-ON852570AC.004D828C-852570AC.004FB2B9@ca.ibm.com>
Amy,

Thx. I corrected that typo. 

I have another question. In Part 1 we refer to the fault propagation 
rulesets (FPR) by names like "message-triggers-fault" but these names are 
not used in Part 2, i.e. Part 2 just says "Message Triggers Fault". Also, 
FPRs are an extension point. Should we introduce IRIs for the FPRs? These 
IRIs wouldn't appear in any WSDL 2.0 document. However, it seems 
consistent to use IRIs for them since we do this for other extension 
points. The MEP templates have a slot [fault ruleset reference] which 
would be used to specify the IRI for the FPR. The obvious choices for the 
IRIs are:

http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/fault-replaces-message
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/message-triggers-fault
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/no-faults

These would tie in better with the names we use in Part 1.

Also, from an editorial point of view, it seems a little odd to refer to 
these FPRs in Part 1 since they are defined in Part 2. This does make Part 
1 more self contained. An alternate organisation would be to move all the 
constraints related to the specific FPRs into Part 2 where they are 
defined. This would have the added benefit of simplifying the XML mapping 
rules, i.e. we would not mention the constraints in the XML mapping 
section. We would only mention them in Part 2 and just in terms of the 
component model.

To summarize: Part 1 should not refer to specific fault propagation 
rulesets. This information should only be in Part 2 where the fault 
propagation ruleset is defined. Part 1 should talk about generic fault 
propagation rulesets and message exchange patterns. The benefit is that 
Part 1 is simpler and the spec overall is more modular.

FYI, I've added the Z Notation for MEPs.[1]

[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-z.html#MessageExchangePattern

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
10/27/2005 03:07 PM

To
www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
new section 2.4.1.1







Responding to Arthur's request for feedback on the new section on MEPs
in part 1:

Paragraph two, last sentence contains the word "place" which should be
"placeholder".

Paragraph three makes reference to each of the Fault Propagation
rulesets: should these rulesets be linked to here where they are
mentioned?

Otherwise, I'm fairly comfortable with this explication.  It's a bit
odd to see this information presented in a different, summary fashion,
but the summary seems reasonably accurate.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 14:30:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:37 GMT