- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:38:14 -0400
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
I've just read through the latest draft of our architecture document at; http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/08/wd-wsa-arch-20020821.html I really like where it's headed, including the prose, and the structure as I understand it. A big concern I have is that we're putting a lot of text in there that should arguably go in later. By that I mean that I'd still like to see us get something lean-and-mean out ASAP, based on SOAP + WSDL. IMO, every additional sentence in there that isn't directly contributing to this, stands the chance of slowing us down as we refine and rephrase it to meet people's liking. If we plan to publish without concensus on that stuff, then I'm not as concerned. At this point in time, I'll just list the more substantial comments that I had; - section 1.3 says "A small and non-exclusive set of protocols for interchanging information between agents", which I believe is incorrect, because each WSDL document defines a new protocol. So perhaps more accurately we should say that the Web services architecture (currently) consists of a protocol framework which provides a means for each application to define its own protocol. - I agree with Chris' note that SOAP belongs in the protocol section, since it's principle value is as a protocol, despite it also having some of the properties of a format. - for the reason suggested in the first point above, I would also put WSDL in the protocols section. Thanks. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20020819#ar023.7.1 MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 23:39:25 UTC