Fw: Comments on Draft WSA

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624
----- Forwarded by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM on 10/30/2002 07:40 AM 
-----

"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
10/29/2002 05:03 PM

To
Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS
cc

bcc

Subject
FW: Comments on Draft WSA





 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)  
Sent:   Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:57 PM 
To:     'mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com' 
Subject:        Comments on Draft WSA 
Since I can't post any more to www-ws-arch let me just send some comments 
to you, as an editor, for what they are worth.  Most of this is just going 
to be wordsmithing or obvious things, and possibly you want to deal with 
these things later, but might as well document them, even though I'm sure 
mostly I'm telling you things you know.
Basically I think  this document is shaping up very well, particularly in 
terms of comprehensibility. 
2 (near end) - "MUST use SOAP and WSDL when appropriate" sounds sort of 
like "must use them if you feel like it".  Don't you really mean "MUST use 
SOAP and WSDL for messaging and descriptioin functions respectively"?
3.1 sentence 2 - "must at least provide the components within the basic 
architecture".  Unclear to me what you mean.  "The" is the problem, I 
think.  Is this "all", "some", "from the list"?   Is it the three below 
this sentence?  All three?  Not being picky, honestly don't know what was 
intended.
3.1 - After bullet list and elsewhere in this section -- "software 
agents".  Doesn't "agent" have a rather particular meaning not quite what 
you are talking about here?  Later it seems that the word "module" is 
used, which I find less scary.  I associate "agent" with talking paper 
clips and ... well, you know.
3.1 - "The figure above" -- used twice with different descriptions but 
same figure.   Then Fig 2 mentioned but can't find any candidate.  I think 
some figures are missing or repeated inadvertently.
3.3.3.2, 3.3.3.2.2 -- I think that these sections would benefit from some 
of the recent stuff coming out of the choreography discussion.  In light 
of some of those these don't seem quite right to me.
3.3.4.2.1 - All your service description acquisitions, whether design or 
runtime, are "pulls".  Surely there can be "pushes"?  I can email you my 
WSDL.  Or there can be negotiations (human) from which the WSDL is part of 
the expression of the agreement reached.