W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2006

Re: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2006Feb/0007.html

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:20:30 +0100
Message-Id: <1fd10a30d73d3badae7fb2bae2295dae@pi4tech.com>
To: 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

From: Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:41:43 -0800
To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-id: <43F23277.1050604@sun.com>
Subject: Start of Comments on Primer

As of latest draft:

Section 1.1
We didn't resolve how to position the audience. Need to solidify and
update first sentence in this section.

Section 2
a. The most important point of the first paragraph is sentence #4 that
talks about specifying peer-to-peer protocols. Suggest rearrange.

b. "The distinction between SOA and Web Services is that the latter has
its interface described using WSDL whereas the latter may not."
This statement doesn't gain anything and may provide other than the
desired result. Suggest deletion.

c. "Because WS-CDL is not explicitly bound to WSDL it can play the same
global model role for both SOA services and Web Services."
Unless changed there are no specific examples around non-WSDL based
services like Java and this statement may
provide other than the desired result. How to handle is implementation
specific. This comment is supported by what is described in Section 
Suggest deletion or explanation.

Section 2.1
a. "WS-CDL is a description and not an executable language, hence the
term “Description” in it’s name. It is a language that can be used to
unambiguously describe observable service collaborations, we might also
refer to this a business protocols within and across domains of control
that govern how the services interact."

Should be '...refer to this as a business protocol'.

b. "WS-CDL provides an unambiguous way of describing the ordering of
message exchanges and in so doing ensure that the services that
participate in the observable collaborations based on such vertical
standards conform to the choreography description. You can think of it
as a way to ensure that services are well-behaved with respect to their
common goals across domains."

Unless we give specific example and a profile of such, uncertain what
value this brings. The common goal point has already been made. Please
explain the reference to vertical standards. Suggest deletion.

Section 3.1
a. Quote Timeout Collaboration
Whether or not the Quote Acceptance takes precedence may be relative to
the parties involved.

b. "We hope that this becomes self evident to the reader as we walk
through constructing the WS-CDL description for this example."
Suggest deletion, opinion.

Section 3.2
This section is really a basic definition. State as such (Degenerate
case sounds negative). Suggest you use 'basic' for 'degenerate' on all

Section 3.3.1
a. "In the example when the buyer requests a quote a message is sent
from the buyer to the seller with the details of the product for which
the quote is for."

Correct grammar.
'...with the details of the product included in the quote.'

b. "Each exchange names names the type of the thing to be exchanged and
the direction of the exchange (e.g. a request, a response, or a fault)."
Delete duplicate 'names.'

a. Sentences too long. If you have a list of items with an example in
parenthesis, use a bulleted list (and indent with an example). This
allows reader to flow through the information.
Received on Monday, 17 April 2006 13:20:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:35 UTC