W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

Architecture WG Requirements vis-a-vis WSDL WG Requirements

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:49:41 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC102B4ABE5@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>



The following is an analysis of feedback from the Web Services Architecture WG [1] identifying overlap between Web Services Architecture WG requirements [ARCH1, ARCH2] and Web Services Description WG requirements [WSDL]. Each item of feedback is listed followed by a concise analysis.




1. Feedback: [WSDL] R070 “The WG specification(s) MUST allow providing a mapping from the description language to [RDF].” (See [ARCH2] AC009.)


Analysis: [ARCH2] AC009 and [WSDL] R070, R120 are compatible.



2. Feedback: [WSDL] R001 “The description language MUST allow any programming model, transport, or protocol for communication between peers.” (See [ARCH2] AC011, AC021.)



[ARCH2] AC011 and [WSDL] R012, R014 are compatible.

[ARCH2] AC021 and [WSDL] R105 are compatible.



3. Feedback: [WSDL] R099 “Processors of the description language MUST support XML Schema.” (See [ARCH1] AC010.1.)



[ARCH1] AC010.1 and WSDL [R098] are compatible. (WSDL [R098] is stronger: the WG specification(s) are specifically required to be written in XML Schema.)

Apparently, there is no [ARCH1, ARCH2] requirement comparable to [WSDL] R099. 



4. Feedback: [WSDL] R007 “The WG specification(s) MUST provide detailed examples, including on-the-wire messages.” (See AC012.)



[ARCH2 AC012] refers to user scenarios and use cases; there is no comparable requirement in [WSDL], but the Web Services Description WG does have a separate deliverable for this purpose [WSDLUSE].

Apparently, there is no [ARCH1, ARCH2] requirement comparable to [WSDL] R007.



5. Feedback: [WSDL] R003 “The WG specification(s) SHOULD use available XML technologies.” (See [ARCH1] AC010.)


Analysis: [ARCH1] AC010 and [WSDL] R003 are compatible.



6. Feedback: [WSDL] R105 “The WG specification(s) SHOULD support Web Services that operate on resource constrained devices.” (See [ARCH2] AC021.)


Analysis: [ARCH2] AC021 and [WSDL] R105 are compatible.



7. Feedback: [WSDL] R010 “The WG specification(s) SHOULD use consistent terminology across all sections of the specification(s).” (See [ARCH2] AC012.)


Analysis: [ARCH2] AC012 and [WSDL] R010 are compatible. ([ARCH2] AC012 is a special case.)



8. Feedback: [WSDL] R013 “The WG specification(s) MUST be simple to understand and implement correctly. The description language MUST be simple to use.” (See [ARCH2] AC005.)


Analysis: [ARCH2] AC005 and [WSDL] R013 are compatible. ([ARCH2] AC005 is more detailed.)



9. Feedback: [WSDL] R014 “The WG specification(s) SHOULD be compatible with existing Web infrastructure.” (See [ARCH2] AC011.)


Analysis: [ARCH2] AC011 and [WSDL] R012, R014 are compatible.



10. Feedback: [WSDL] R012 “The description language MUST support the kind of extensibility actually seen on the Web: disparity of document formats and protocols used to communicate, mixing of XML vocabularies using XML namespaces, development of solutions in a distributed environment without a central authority, etc. In particular, the description language MUST support distributed extensibility.” (See [ARCH2] AC003, 




[ARCH2] AC011 and [WSDL] R012, R014 are compatible.

[ARCH2] AC003 and [WSDL] R001, R083 are compatible.





[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002May/0227.html

[ARCH1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20020429 

[ARCH2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/wd-wsa-reqs-20020605.html 

[WSDL] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20020429/ 

[WSDLUSE] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-usecases-20020604/ 


Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 05:50:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:23 UTC