RE: Draft of the Web Services Glossary (reliable messaging)

Agreed with concerns about the .. abruptness .. of the SOA vs REST material.
I think part of the reason it is abrupt is because doing a rigorous
definition of an architecture style should take a fair amount of text, but
we/I haven't put much more time into it.  Further, we've never discussed in
the WG what needs to be done with the text.  I have been working on some
material to compare/contrast these, specifically a couple travel scenarios
(imagine that!), I'm hoping to have them ready fairly soon, like within a
few weeks, targetting the f2f.  But they won't make the cutoff for the
publication schedule.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:35 AM
> To: jdart@tibco.com; Francis McCabe
> Cc: Hugo Haas; www-ws-arch@w3.org; dorchard@bea.com
> Subject: RE: Draft of the Web Services Glossary (reliable messaging)
> 
> 
> 
> In general this looks pretty good to me, although some 
> wordsmithing and
> smoothing is obviously still necessary.  I agree with both of Jon's
> comments below.
> 
> Hugo -- you should note that the glossary definition of RM is 
> now out of
> whack with the document.
> 
> Frank and Dave - Reading on from the RM section into the SOA 
> section --
> I found this section extremely hard going.  For example, what does
> "Direct SOA" mean?  It is defined briefly, but not discussed 
> very much,
> in section 1.6.2, which is WAY far away from this point in 
> the document.
> And I agree that more discussion of the advantages of the styles is
> needed.  I think that this section needs to be expanded and explained
> more for the benefit of people who have not spent huge amounts of time
> discussing these concepts and issues.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:31 PM
> To: Francis McCabe
> Cc: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Hugo Haas; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft of the Web Services Glossary (reliable messaging)
> 
> 
> This draft is much improved.
> 
> > Of these, first and second are considered to be part of reliable 
> > messaging, the last is partly addressed by Web service choreography.
> > 
> I'm not sure the second is part of RM. RM implies end to end 
> integrity 
> of the data at the transport layer. However, IMO data 
> validation wrt XML
> 
> syntax or schema is an application-level function.
> 
> > Message reliability is most often achieved via an acknoweldgement 
> > infrastructure, which is a set of rules defining how the 
> parties to a 
> > message should communicate with each other concerning the 
> receipt of 
> > that message and its validity.
> 
> Reliability also usually imples an infrastructure for identifying 
> messages, both to support duplicate detection, and also to enable 
> correlation of messages sent and received asychronously.
> 
> --Jon
> 
> Francis McCabe wrote:
> > 
> > Take a look at
> > 
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-
> > review2.html?rev=1.12&content-type=text/html
> > 
> > I have done some munging of the wording, and added one 
> concept to the
> > concepts and relationships section pertaining to message 
> reliability.
> > 
> > Frank
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 01:08  PM, Cutler, Roger 
> > (RogerCutler)
> > wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> As you know, the editors are currently chewing on RM verbiage 
> >> contributed by me and commented on by others, including 
> yourself.  I 
> >> am sort of assuming that the RM definition is likely to 
> morph after 
> >> we see how the digestion process proceeds ... Uh, this metaphor is 
> >> moving in a direction that I should probably cut short ...
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 2:14 PM
> >> To: Hugo Haas
> >> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Draft of the Web Services Glossary (reliable 
> messaging)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I trust the "reliable messaging" definition is still a work in  
> >> progress.
> >>
> >> As it stands, the text says that RM implies both confirmation of  
> >> receipt
> >>
> >> and once-and-only-once delivery. In fact, real reliable message 
> >> systems may offer either of these capabilities, or both, and in 
> >> addition other capabilities, as part of a spectrum of quality of 
> >> service options.
> >>
> >> --Jon
> >>
> >> Hugo Haas wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear WG members,
> >>>
> >>> Please review for publication (i.e. let the editor know on the 
> >>> www-ws-arch mailing list if there are things that need to 
> be flagged
> 
> >>> as not representing consensus at all, or something one 
> cannot live 
> >>> with, etc.) the following document:
> >>>
> >>>   Web Services Glossary
> >>>
> >>>   Editors' Draft $Date: 2003/04/30 17:54:16 $ 2003
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa-glossa
> >>> ry
> >>> .html?rev=1.40&content-type=text/html
> >>>
> >>> Main changes since the W3C Working Draft 14 November 2002:
> >>> - incorporates the decisions and discussions made.
> >>> - incorporates the management glossary work
> >>> - reorganization of the sections
> >>>
> >>> Detailed changes:
> >>> - Changelog:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa- 
> >> glossary.h tml?rev=1.40&content-type=text/html#changelog
> >>
> >>> - CVS log:
> >>>   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa-glossary.xml
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Hugo
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>