- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:22:22 -0700
- To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
In [1], we received several comments on the 29 April Requirements draft [2]. I have incorporated several of the minor points of feedback in the working draft [3], and below are some more substantial points of feedback along with my recommendation. --Jeff [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2002Sep/0001 .html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20020429/ [3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-re qs.html COMMENT 1 "action" is undefined (I realize one can't define every term in every definition -- perhaps specs should provide both definitions and explicit lists of important primitive concepts), and the result is that I don't know what is actually meant here. RECOMMENDATION Use a better definition from the TAG, if any. REQUIREMENT R014 The WG specification(s) SHOULD be compatible with existing Web infrastructure. (From the Charter. Last discussed 7 Mar 2002.) COMMENT R014 seems vague. It would be helpful to the reader if it were possible to indicate in a sketchy manner which parts of the existing Web infrastructure are meant here: existing deployed WSDL 1.1 software? REST-ful software and ideas? HTML 3.2? I realize that this is likely to be a difficult point to reach perfect consensus on; perhaps a note indicating the degree of consensus and the points of contention would be useful. RECOMMENDATION (No change.) R014 comes directly from the charter. It is a general goodness requirement and is harmless. REQUIREMENT R054 The description language MUST clearly separate the description of Messages from the Message exchange pattern and InterfaceBinding. (From YF. Last revised 11 April 2002.) COMMENT R054 is opaque to me: as a reader, I don't know what is meant here, or how I would tell the difference between a Web Services Description spec that met this requirement and one which didn't. RECOMMENDATION Reword: "The description language MUST describe Messages independent from their use in message exchange patterns and/or Interface Bindings." REQUIRMENT R116 The description language MUST allow describing abstract policies required or offered by Services. (From GD. Last revised 11 Apr 2002.) COMMENT R116 sounds good, but I don't know what it means. An example of an abstract policy, as opposed to a concrete policy, would be helpful, as would an example clarifying what it means to "offer" a policy. [Good feedback.] RECOMMENDATION Ask contributor (Glen?) to clarify. (I don't remember exactly what we were driving at here.) REQUIREMENT R046 The description language MUST allow describing Messages independent of specific wire format. (From JS. Last discussed 11 April, 2002.) COMMENT R046 leaves the term "wire format" undefined. I have heard this term often before, but never before in a context where the details of what is meant matter quite so much. A definition or at least an example would be useful. (Big-endian vs. little-endian? HTTP vs. SMTP? ASCII vs UTF-7 vs UTF-8 vs Shift-JIS vs EBCDIC vs UTF-16? All of the above? None of the above?) RECOMMENDATION Reword: "The description language MUST describe Messages independent from transfer encodings." or "The description language MUST describe Messages in terms of the XML Infoset." REQUIREMENT R071 The description language MUST allow partitioning a description across multiple files. (From JS.) COMMENT R071 puzzles me slightly. If the description is in XML, as is implied by your definition of Web Service, then this is already given by the existence of the external-entity mechanism in XML. If the external-entity mechanism of XML does not meet this requirement, then it is not clear what the requirement is, and this item needs revision. RECOMMENDATION (No change.) We need a mechanism that allows changes to the WSDL component model in the way that XSD include/import does. REQUIREMENT 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. (From the Charter. Last discussed 12 April 2002.) COMMENT R012 uses but does not define the term "support", which means the statement of the requirement is not really very informative. RECOMMENDATION (No change.) A general requirement from the charter that is refined in other requirements. REQUIREMENT R067 The description language MUST have adequate points of extension in its constructions. (From WG discussion. Last discussed 12 Apr 2002.) COMMENT R067 uses the term "points of extension", which should perhaps be defined (I don't know what it means). RECOMMENDATION Reword: "The description language MUST allow for extension in REQUIREMENT R115 The WG specification(s) SHOULD define the equivalence of Service descriptions. (From SW. Last discussed 11 April 2002.) COMMENT R115 appeals to a notion of equivalence, but the meaning of "equivalence" is not clear here. Do you mean that the WG specification(s) SHOULD define an equivalence relation on Service descriptions? Or are you appealing to an existing notion of such an equivalence relation, and saying that the spec(s) should be sure to do something (what?) about it? RECOMMENDATION Reword: The WG specification(s) SHOULD define an equivalence relation on Service descriptions." EOF
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 11:22:56 UTC