- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 02:34:25 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF399CCFF9.1707D839-ON85257164.001BD514-85257164.00241B6E@ca.ibm.com>
I reviewed Part 2 carefully and have the following questions up to the end of chapter 5: 1. In 4.2 IRI Style, the content model of the initial is constrained to have a sequence of child elements. What are the occurrence contraints? Are there any? 2. In 4.2 IRI Style, the last bullet says: "If the children elements of the sequence are defined using an XML Schema type ...". What else could they be defined as? Don't all elements have a type? 3. In 5.3 SOAP Binding Rules, the rule about mustUnderstand seems weak. If the SOAP Header block is marked as mustUnderstand=true in WSDL, then shouldn't the header in the SOAP message also have mustUnderstand=true? 4. In 5.6.2, isn't {soap fault codes} really a set and not a list? The order of subcodes is irrelevant and it doesn't make sense to repeat a subcode. Sounds like a set. Also, is there a difference between having an empty set of subcodes and #any. I assume #any means any subcode may be used. Does an empty set mean the subcodes are never used? 5. Global comment on organization: Part 1 is organized by component, and then by properties within a component. In Part 2 this structure in not used. Components and properties are described together. I think it would be clearer is we followed the Part 1 organization, i.e. have a section for each Core and Extension component involved, then list and describe the properties that apply to each compoinent. e.g. 5.7.2 lists a set of properties, but some apply to Binding and some apply to Binding Operation - sort of confusing I think. 6. In 5.7.2 is there any constraint between WSDL meps and SOAP meps, i.e. if an operation uses a given WSDL mep, then does that restrict the allowed SOAP mep used in the biniding? 7. In 5.7.2 there are defaulting rules for {soap mep} but is a value for the actual SOAP mep required, i.e. must the defaulting rules produce a definite value? 8. In 5.8.2 there should be a constraint on {soap modules} that each soap module component is uniquely identified by its {ref} property, i.e {ref} is a key. No two different soap modules in the {soap modules} property may have the same {ref}. 9. Similarly, in 5.9.2 there should be a contraints on {soap headers} that each soap header component is uniquely identified by is {element declaration} property (I assume). 10. In 5.9.6, the design of the fragment identifier for wsoap.header is inconsistent since it represents the element QName as namespace#name. All other components use the QName and define the namespace using an xmlns pointer part. This should be changed to use QName too, c.f. the element declaration component itself. Arthur Ryman, IBM Software Group, Rational Division blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 06:34:37 UTC