RE: WS Description WG comments on WS-A (editorial)

The WS-Addressing WG has resolved these comments [1], by clarifying that
use of the terms request and reply are not intended to map directly to
the WSDL 1.1 Request-Response pattern, but are more generic terms for
initial messages and responses (replies, faults, etc.) to those
messages.

 

Accordingly, the WS-A spec will adopt the terms "message" and "reply"
consistently, and add further clarification of the use of these terms as
appropriate.

 

The editors have been given the final two bullet points to incorporate
as appropriate.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc107

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonathan
Marsh
Sent: Fri 5/13/2005 7:13 AM
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Subject: WS Description WG comments on WS-A (editorial)

 

The Web Services Description WG reviewed the WS-A specs, and had these
editorial comments on Section 3 of the Core spec touching on
WSDL-related terminology:

- "The basic interaction pattern from which all others are composed is
"one way"." It would be preferable to use "one way" in a manner
consistent with the use of the term for the WSDL 1.1 transmission
primitive - "One-way".

- "Request Reply" is a common interaction pattern...." Likewise, it
would be preferable to use "Request Reply" in a manner consistent with
the use of the term for the WSDL 1.1 transmission primitive -
"Request-Response".

- "...or to a particular WSDL MEP." Since this spec primarily references
WSDL 1.1 transmission primitives, shouldn't this be consistently worded
as "...or to a particular WSDL transmission primitive or MEP." (to
capture support of WSDL 1.1 and 2.0)?

- In the description for [action], we have "...within a WSDL port type."
Shouldn't this be consistently worded as "...within a WSDL port type or
interface." (to capture support of WSDL 1.1 and 2.0)?

These comments were compiled by Charlton Barretto, who also identified
other general editorial issues which we expect him to file separately.
Please accept our apologies for the tardiness of the above comments, and
for our delay of Charlton's additional comments.

Thank you.
Jonathan Marsh on behalf of the WS Description WG