Comments on Web Service Usage Scenarios 23 April 2002

Here are my comments on
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/03/UC/ws-desc-usecases.html

Status, paragraph 1. Typo: "requirements document" -> "usage scenarios
document"

Introduction, VP2. tools may also generate server skeletons in the case
that you want to implement a Web service given its interface description

2.1.1.2, 2.1.2.2. Don't these relate to VP1? How do they relate to VP2?

2.1.2 Typo: "Gauranteed" -> "Guaranteed" in two places (run a spelling
checker)

2.1.2.3 Grammar: should be "they do want to receive"

2.1.3.3 Grammar: should be "is an ebXML"

2.1.3.3 Formatting: break the <attachment> elements across two lines so
they fit on a page

2.1.6.3, 2.1.7.3, 2.3.1.3, 2.4.1.3 eliminate the code examples since they
don't clarify the scenarios. add more text to explain the scenarios

2.2.2.3 the example to justify the requirement is not very compelling. is
there a better justification?

2.2.3.3 are we talking about XA compliant transactions here? I personally
doubt this is the way to go for Web services (compensating operations are
more suitable). In any case simply saying an operational is transactional
is not precise enough. there are many forms of transactional behavior,
(look at the EJB spec), e.g. requires a transaction, must not be in a
transaction, starts a new transaction, etc.

2.2.5.3 need to add detail on the semantics of version numbers. what do the
major and minor revisions mean? are minor revisions just small changes like
better documentation? do they guarantee that the operation signatures are
unchanged?

2.2.6 not a very compelling scenario. is there a better example to justify
this?

2.2.7.3 Grammar: should be "I want the response")

2.2.7.3 seems like a fairly exotic scenario. is there a better
justification?

2.5.1.3 Typo: obtainign -> obtaining


Arthur Ryman

Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 14:03:46 UTC