RE: SOAP UML diagram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:07 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAP UML diagram
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:16:23AM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > Some comments:
> > - I believe that a body is a header that is targetted at the ultimate
> > receiver
>
> Yah, ditto to what Martin said.  I recall this being discussed and
> (I think) refuted on xml-dist-app sometime ago.
>
> >   - a collection of 2 or more messages can be an mep
>
> Really?
>
> I would say that a MEP describes how a message is exchanged.  It seems
> to me that it's orthogonal to the message itself.  I'm not sure how some
> number of messages would change that.
>
> >   - a module is a header
>
> A module is more of a spec.  It can define one or more headers.
>
> >   - a message has a binding to a protocol.
>
> Hmm, tough one.  I'd just say that a binding binds SOAP messages
> to an underlying protocol.
>
> BTW, I'd also recommend using the terminology from SOAP 1.2 section
> 1.5, as those terms were very carefully chosen.  "message" is a bit
> ambiguous; if we mean "SOAP message", I'd suggest using it.  This
> section also provides a great place to discover the kinds of
> relationships that the diagram might want to expose.

The reason I didn't put SOAP <X> everywhere was  out of pure lazyness, but
officially because
everything in the diagram has a SOAP prefix, so I assumed  the SOAP
namespace:-)

As too all the other relationships, to me the question is how much info is
relevent to our purpose here,
which I think should be discused.

>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>   Actively seeking contract work or employment
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 18:25:14 UTC