W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

Re: new editor's draft of WSA available

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:38:10 +0100
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-wsa-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021028153809.GM20932@w3.org>

Hi Chris (and editors).

* Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> [2002-10-21 12:44-0400]
> Anyway, here's the latest WSA:
>  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch.html

The comments below are against revision 1.19. I have marked as
substantial comments that are not editorial, i.e. that don't need to
be dealt with right away. "substantial?" means that it may be easily
fixable, or maybe not (e.g. modifying a diagram).

=> Section 2: "mutually agreed-upon" (substantial)

Considering the model where the requestor discovers the provider's
interface and then interacts with the service, talking about agreement
seems odd to me. More specifically, I am wondering the relationship
with issue 1[1].

=> Section 3.1: "publishes it to a requestor or service discovery agency"

The document presents service discovery agency as an abstract role,
that the provider, or anybody else for that matter, can take. This
description seems to imply that a service discovery agency is a
concrete third party.

=> Section 3.1: "Intermediaries may processes certain functions"

Isn't that s/processes/perform/?

=> Figure 2

Unless I missed something, I don't see any difference between figure 1
and 2.

=> Section 3.1.3: "Service Publication Stck"

Typo: Service Publication Stack. Should probably be a specref.

=> Section 3.2.1: "Features are..." (substantial?)

The glossary has:

          An abstract piece of functionality provided by the

Rereading it, I don't think that "provided by the architecture" is
right and I would like to drop it. Do people agree?

=> Section 3.2.1: "Asynchrony - dynamic and static" (substantial)

I must admit that this doesn't speak to me. We should add some text
here explaining what is meant, and eventually put something in the

=> Section 3.2.1: "long running transaction, aka conversation"

The glossary reads:

          A logical collection of messages exchanged between
          communicating parties.

   Long-Running Interaction
          A series of operations between a client and a Web service.

This will have to be reconciliated. I will add some text in the
glossary to not forget about it.

=> Section "For example, business context is described using"

Continuing my generalization: s/is/can be/

=> Section 3.3.5: Overarching concerns (substantial?)

I think that privacy is something which will show up fairly often,
whether one invokes a service, looks for one, publishes a description,
including its policy.

=> Section 4.2.1: XML Infoset (substantial?)

Regarding the comment about flexibility in the choice of
serialization, I think that we could add examples, such as compression
of an XML 1.0 document.

=> Section 6: Figure 7/8

The text talks about figure 7, but there is no figure 7, but 8.

=> Section 9.1: Normative References

I think that WDs are informative references, i.e. 2, 7, 8 and 9.

=> Section 9.2: Informative References

I would add the glossary and the usage scenarios document, and maybe
add some text pointing people to them. In a next revision, we will
need to link (and sync) the glossary and the architecture document,
and the usage scenarios document too, which sounds like hard work.



  1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html#x1
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 10:38:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:42 UTC