W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2001

RE: Naming

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:19:43 +0200 (CEST)
To: "Corda, Ugo" <Ugo.Corda@usa.xerox.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104121808200.16674-100000@bimbo.in.idoox.com>
 Hello Ugo,

 thanks for showing me this interpretation. 8-) I already knew
somebody had proposed Simple Open Access Protocol, too.

 We could actually live with such different interpretations of
the SOAP acronym (if that can legally be changed), so this means
Idoox supports the choices A and B (with the redefiniton of the
SOAP acronym).

                            Jacek Kopecky
                               Idoox



On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Corda, Ugo wrote:

 > >the SOAP acronym doesn't really fit
 > >the protocol, even though I have to admit the acronym is catchy.
 >
 > I imagine that could be easily fixed. For instance, in an IBM presentation I
 > saw the acronym being converted to "Services Oriented Architecture
 > Protocol".
 >
 > Ugo Corda
 > Xerox Research & Technology
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@idoox.com]
 > Sent: April 12, 2001 5:23 AM
 > To: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
 > Subject: Re: Naming
 >
 >
 >  Hello all. 8-)
 >
 >  I only feel positively to the option A - globally replacing SOAP
 > with XMLP. That's because the SOAP acronym is doesn't really fit
 > the protocol, even though I have to admit the acronym is catchy.
 > Yes, keeping the name would help those who aren't following the
 > details of the latest news, but it would also keep confusing the
 > newcomers about the purposes of this protocol.
 >
 >  If W3C comes up with a spec that only mentions SOAP as its
 > predecessor, I as somebody who has worked on SOAP implementations
 > wouldn't feel bad about it. I think that most of the SOAP
 > implementors would gladly just move to XMLP because SOAP is not
 > perfect.
 >
 >  Let me review the cons for the remaining options:
 >
 >  B: We would have to introduce a new version of SOAP - probably
 > 2.0. Because we will have differences we would have to change the
 > namespaces (SOAP 1.1 doesn't allow for any other versioning) and
 > this breaks the existing support anyway.
 >
 >  C: The example sentence implies that XMLP is an abstract XML
 > protocol and SOAP is a concrete syntax for that. I doubt we
 > want to do that because it would be confusing and it would break
 > the existing support anyway, too, see B.
 >
 >  D: This kind of hybrid could be useful only in the very early
 > stages which IMHO are behind us now.
 >
 >  E: When do we change something from SOAP-Foo to XMLP-Foo? Since
 > we need a new namespace anyway, we won't stay close enought to
 > SOAP to keep its naming.
 >
 >  Best regards
 >
 >
 >                             Jacek Kopecky
 >                                Idoox
 >
 >
 >
 > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, David Fallside wrote:
 >
 >  >
 >  > As discussed in today's telcon, here is the "seed" text on the Naming
 > issue
 >  > copied from today's agenda. Two points of note regarding this email
 > thread,
 >  > (1) discussion must either indicate support/dissent for an existing
 >  > (identified) option or propose (with rationale) a new option, note that
 >  > five options [a - e] are proposed already, and (2) this email thread
 > stays
 >  > on the member list for the time being.
 >  >
 >  > I introduced this agenda item by saying it is very important for the
 >  > outcome of the WG's eventual decision on this matter to not
 > disenfranchise
 >  > the existing SOAP community who already have dozens of implementations,
 >  > indeed we should be looking for ways to gain their support and benefit
 > from
 >  > their experience.
 >  >
 >  >
 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >  >
 >  > As the XMLP WG moves closer to publishing the first draft of a
 >  > specification and as the spec editors work on a first editor's draft, the
 >  > WG needs to further refine its position on naming. On the one hand, the
 > WG
 >  > decided recently to adopt "XMLP" as it's acronym for "XML Protocol" and
 > has
 >  > been using XMLP in various of its documents. On the other hand, the SOAP
 >  > 1.1 specification which is the basis for our specification uses the term
 >  > "SOAP". There are various ways we can handle the details of this issue
 > (and
 >  > several options are described below). Note there are a number of
 >  > significant places where the names are encountered:
 >  >
 >  > (i) The abstract model, uses XMLP.
 >  > (ii) Glossary terms, use XMLP.
 >  > (iii) Requirements are stated in terms of XMLP.
 >  > (iv) The specification, based on SOAP 1.1, uses SOAP.
 >  > (v) Namespace URI's, currently, the SOAP envelope and serialization use
 >  > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/ and
 >  > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ respectively. Namespaces used
 > in
 >  > W3C specs these days follow a naming convention that (a) is time based,
 > and
 >  > (b) is dereferencable. Following these conventions, the namespaces would
 > be
 >  > like http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlp/envelope or
 >  > http://www.w3.org/2001/04/soap/envelope, and W3C would ensure their
 >  > dereferencability. Note that such URI's may change between versions of
 > the
 >  > spec.
 >  > (vi) The concrete syntax (including the envelope and serialisation
 > schemas)
 >  > where the only use of "SOAP" is the SOAPAction header in the HTTP
 > binding.
 >  >
 >  > [The namespace prefixes such as SOAP-ENC are not part of this discussion
 >  > because from an XML point of view they are only valid within the context
 > of
 >  > XML instances, and coders are free to use any prefix within an instance.]
 >  >
 >  > A number of options seem either obvious or have been suggested to me by
 > WG
 >  > members:
 >  >
 >  > (a) Global replacement of "SOAP" with "XMLP" in all our technical
 > documents
 >  > (i, ii, iv) and syntax (v, vi).
 >  > (b) Global replacement of "XMLP" with "SOAP" in our technical documents
 >  > (i,ii, iv) and syntax (v, vi).
 >  > (c) Mixed naming scheme in which abstract concepts are "XMLP" (i), and
 >  > concrete syntax (v) and schema constructs (vi) are "SOAP". For example,
 > the
 >  > description of Body (SOAP spec, section 4, 3rd bullet in first list)
 > might
 >  > read something like "The XMLP Body is a container for mandatory
 > information
 >  > intended for the ultimate recipient of the message. The SOAP syntax
 > defines
 >  > one element to represent the XMLP Body".
 >  > (d) Hybrid naming scheme involving global replacement of "SOAP" and
 > "XMLP"
 >  > with something like "XMLP/SOAP", or other hybrid TBD.
 >  > (e) Naming should be conditional on the degree to which the specification
 >  > differs from SOAP.
 >  >
 >  > This agenda item is an initial solicitation for suggestions for other
 >  > options and/or refinements of the options above.
 >  >
 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > ---------------------------------------------------
 >  >
 >  > ............................................
 >  > David C. Fallside, IBM
 >  > Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
 >  > Int   Ph: 544.9665
 >  > fallside@us.ibm.com
 >  >
 >
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 12:19:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:00 GMT