Re: Issue 232 [was RE: Issues 227, 231, 234, 235 plus 226, 227, 232]

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>I just added it because it was marked as editorial in the issues list ☺.
>
>But looking into this issue more deeply across Parts 1, 2, and 3, I see two aspects to this issue.  First is making sure each use of the term message exchange pattern is clear which layer it’s referring too.
>
>Part 1 introduces and defines the term “message exchange pattern”, and does not refer to SOAP MEPs, so there is no conflict there.
>
>Part 2 uses the term WSDL message exchange pattern so it’s clear it’s not talking about SOAP MEPs.  There is one exception - in the 2nd sentence of the Intro, that should probably be fixed.
>
>Part 3 introduces the term SOAP Message Exchange Pattern (SOAP MEP) and uses it consistently to differentiate SOAP and WSDL MEPs, although WSDL message exchange patterns are only referred to by properties (“{message exchange pattern} property”) so that seems unambiguous.  There is one occurrence, in Table 3.2, of the term “Message Pattern” as a heading in the table.  Perhaps that should be changed to “WSDL Message Exchange Pattern”.
>
+1

>
>The second part is adding a little explanation differentiating WSDL MEPs from SOAP MEPs or another protocol's MEPs that might be in use in the underlying protocol.  Rather than qualifying WSDL MEPs as Interface MEPs as Mark suggests (they are already qualified as WSDL MEPs), perhaps we should just add an explanatory sentence to the first paragraph of the intro along the lines of:
>
>  "Web Services Description Language (WSDL) message exchange patterns 
>  define the sequence and cardinality of abstract messages listed in 
>  an operation. WSDL message exchange patterns also define which other 
>  nodes send messages to, and receive messages from, the service 
>  implementing the operation.  WSDL message exchange patterns describe 
>  the interaction at the abstract (interface) level, which may be 
>  distinct from the pattern used by the underlying protocol binding 
>  (e.g. SOAP Message Exchange Patterns <ref>)."
>
+1 as well.

>
>Mark, Amy, what do you think?
>
>________________________________________
>From: Umit Yalcinalp [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:41 PM
>To: Jonathan Marsh
>Cc: Web Services Description
>Subject: Re: Issues 227, 231, 234, 235 plus 226, 227, 232
>
>
>
>Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>
>And these two as well:
> - 226 Cross-binding HTTP features
> - 232 Differentiate our MEPs from underlying protocol MEPs 
>Jonathan, 
>
>I am ok with the previous set but not clear why you are proposing to mark 232 an editorial item. Could we see the text please? 
>
>Thanks. 
>
>--umit
>
>
>
>
>  
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
>    
>On
>  
>Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:20 PM
>To: Web Services Description
>Subject: Issues 227, 231, 234, 235
>
>
>The WG previously agreed to refer these editorial issues to the
>    
>editors,
>  
>who were to come back if they had issues with anything therein:
>- (ed) 208 Misc. editorial comments
>- (ed) 213 Refine component model property constraints
>- (ed) 215 Clarify rule obviation
>
>I propose we do the same with the following editorial issues:
>- 227 Description of Binding Operation component
>- 231 Clarify "patterns"
>- 234 Ruleset terminology
>- 235 Definition of Fault
>
>If you wish to discuss any of these issues in detail, please let me
>know, otherwise I'll refer them to the editors for resolution on
>Thursday without discussion.
>    
>
>
>  
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com

Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 14:19:46 UTC