- From: Didier VILLEVALOIS <dvillevalois@techmetrix.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:19:23 +0200
- To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> We invite comments on this document at public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org. > We especially invite review and additional potential requirements from > the following groups: > > Web Services Architecture Working Group > RDF Interest Group > XForms Working Group > > - Jonathan Marsh, WS Desc WG Chair Service composition and discovery is out of scope. But for an individual web service, interface (in an object) is IMHO not sufficient for its correct use. I think WSD would need a basic description of flow of method call to appropriately use it. For example, i may have a service that provides those two methods: (sorry i'll do a simple RPC-based in Java) interface MyService { public ... firstStep(...); public ... secondStep(...); } I would have to describe that use of MyService is: 1. Call the firstStep() method 2. Then call the secondStep() method I think this goes with fault description if we don't want to have a complete workflow language (which is obviously out of scope). Maybe this should be done by extending the SOAP hierarchy of faults. But shouldn't WSD have those building blocks ? I think this should take place in 'interactions with the client' requirements. I would express it like this: "The description language MAY allow restricting/describing the possible flow of messages between the Web Service and a Client. The description language MAY in particular allow describing what applicative Fault refers to what incorrect call flow." Didier Villevalois. didier@phpapp.org
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 05:19:31 UTC