- From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:56:30 -0500
- To: 'David Booth' <dbooth@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Cc: 'Hugo Haas' <hugo@w3.org>
David, Thanks for making the changes. I have already sent the peer to peer discovery text to the list last Thursday, please use in the appropriate place. Thanks, Katia -----Original Message----- From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:33 PM To: Katia Sycara; www-ws-arch@w3.org Cc: Hugo Haas Subject: RE: Service Discovery comments Hi Katia (and Hugo please note glossary change below), (Catching up on editorial changes.) Thanks for the comments. At 07:16 PM 1/7/2004 -0500, Katia Sycara wrote: >Here are my comments on the service discovery related parts of the document. >In " " I enclose text from the docment and I indicate desired changes by >enclosing them in *...*. I justify the suggested changes in subsequesnt >comments, where appropriate. > --Katia >---------------------------------------------------------- >1. section 2.3.3.2.1. > "Discovery is the act of locating *a Web service through its * >machine-processable description that may have been previously unknown and >that meets certain functional criteria" > >Katia comment: the current definition states that the discovery is the acto >of locating a machine-processable description of a Web service ... >The goal is to discover the service rather than its description so I think >that stating this explicitly in the definition is preferable I think it's important to be clear that the *act* of discovery is the act of finding a *description*, but you're right that the *goal* is to find a service, I've changed the definition to: "Discovery is the act of locating a machine-processable description of a Web service that may have been previously unknown and that meets certain functional criteria. The goal is to find an appropriate Web service." Hugo: This will need to be updated in the glossary. >2. section 2.3.3.2.2 Relationships to other elements > > "Discovery is *realized by* > Matching a set of functional and other criteria with a set of service >descriptions" > >Katia comment: since we do not have a clear definition of an act but we do >use *realized by* quite often, this seems more appropriate Good idea. Done. >3. section 3.1 Step 2 bullet 3 > >I propose to get rid of the parenthesis with "(excepting the network address >of the particular service)" > >Katia comment: it is not clear why this parenthetical text is there. If we >keep it in bullet 3 we need to add it in bullet 4 where it is currently >missing Done. I added it to bullet 4 instead of taking it out of bullet 3, since the need for this exception had been a point stressed earlier by others. >4. section 3.1. >The paragraph after Step 4 starting with "The overall process of engaging a >Web service was outlined in the introduction and included the following >steps ..." is redundant and can be omitted I think that was an editing glitch that has now been fixed. >5. section 3.1.1 >In 1.b. >"The requester entity (either a human or a requester agent) specifies >criteria *and sends them to the discovery service to enable selection of a >Web service description* based on its associated functional description and >potentially other characteristics". Etc... > >Katia comment: the text in * * must be added since step (c) talks about the >discovery service returns one or more Web service descriptions that meet the >criteria. The discovery service must have obtained the requester's criteria. Done, though I shortened the wording a bit: "The requester entity (either a human or the requester agent) supplies criteria to the discovery service . . . ." >6. section 3.1 >Step 2 typo (p. 76) >"Step 2 also requires that the parties agree on the service description that >is to be used. However, since the requester entity obtained the Web service >description in step *1.c* [instead of the current 1.3] in effect ..." Fixed. Thanks. >7. section 3.1.3 > >I do not completely agree that "people are skeptical in allowing machines to >make judgement decisions for them ...." (counterexamples abound, but let us >not get into that discussion). Ok, I've softened that to instead say: "Since people may not trust a machine to make significant judgement decisions that could put themselves or their organizations at risk . . . ." >We can augment the current text by saying that >"In automated discovery, there are two cases for mitigating the trust issue: >1 agents could autonomously discover services and then, show them to the >human user to choose. >2. Agents autonomously discover services and then the requester agent, upon >receiving the set of discovered services can perform some sort of checking, >for example searching the Dunn and Bradstreet registry for the service >providers' quality rating." Good idea. I've added it. >8. section 3.1.4. >"At present there are *three* leading viewpoints on how a discovery service >should be conceived: as a registry or as an index or as a *peer to peer >process*." > >Katia comment: peer to peer discovery would be useful in ad hoc and dynamic >networks, especially for military applications. We may want to mention the >p2p case here for completeness. Good idea. Added. >If people agree, I can write the explanatory text. Yes, please provide a paragraph for inclusion. I've added an editorial note as a placeholder. >9. section 3.1.4. > >I disagree that UDDI is an example of the registry approach. . . . Good point. I've changed the sentence to: "UDDI is often seen as an example of the registry approach. However, as noted below, it depends on how it is used." >10. 3.1.4 (p. 78) "indices" instead of "indexes" Both spellings are correct: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=indexes It's a matter of personal taste. >and also in the fifth bullet Different indices could *provide* (instead of >*provided*) ..... Fixed. Thanks. -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2004 14:56:42 UTC