RE: [R3xx] Requirements Section "4.2 Simplicity and Stability" -- com parison with SOAP1.1.

On Wed 1/31/2001 1:06 PM -0500 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> David Ezell wrote:
>> === R300
>> 
>> In SOAP1.1, "1. Introduction", SOAP specifically declines to define an
>> architecture, abstract or otherwise:  "SOAP does not itself define
>> any application semantics... or implementation semantics...; rather it
>> defines ... a modular packaging model and encoding mechanisms...".  
>
>I think there is a big difference between not defining any application
>semantics and not defining a model. As it absolutely is the intent that
>SOAP can be used to solve real world problems (carry application
>semantics) one could argue that it is not possible to have a protocol
>like SOAP without a model for how application semantics can be added.
>

ummm...
I don't believe we're saying it doesn't define a model, or can't be
used to solve any real-world problems.  What we are saying is that
XML Protocol Requirements goes beyond "modular packaging model and 
encoding mechanisms".  At least it seems so to me.

>At least to me, the protocol binding model in SOAP is definitely a
>layering model allowing SOAP to be exchanged in a variety of ways
>without tying it to a single environment, no?
>  
>> The semantics mentioned are some of the key elements in the abstract
>> models which are being introduced.
>
>I don't believe it is the purpose of the abstract model for XML Protocol
>to define application semantics - I think it is more a question of
>defining how the modules fit together: application semantics go here,
>transfer semantics go here, etc.
>

I agree, it's not the purpose of AMG to define application semantics.
I do think it is their charge to help us better understand the model
which in turn allows us to define how the modules fit together.  While
the underlying model (presumably in common between SOAP1.1 and XML Protocol)
may be clear in the minds of some folks, the WG has seen enough need
for further study.

>> Since SOAP1.1 defines only a "modular packaging model" and "encoding
>> mechanisms",
>> conformance with SOAP1.1 can be viewed as "validation" 
>> conformance (as in
>> DTD or Schema validation).  "XML Protocol requirements" is 
>> suggesting a more
>> rigorous conformance test which includes semantics defined in 
>> in-scope usage
>> scenarios, i.e. certain types of behavior.
>
>I don't think the SOAP validation model is only to validate the model -
>it is in fact to process the message according to the rules or generate
>a fault. I agree that the rules are written in a rather sparse manner
>but there certainly are rules for how to process a SOAP message.
>

So, SOAP1.1 does go a little farther than just "validate the document",
which could be described as "process it and send a fault if it doesn't
work."  XML Protocol Requirements, through the definitions of approved
(and thereby included) scenarios, promises to be much broader.  If
the term "more rigorous" is not acceptable, perhaps "broader" is more
accurate with regard to the "conformance test". 

Best Regards,
David Ezell

Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 10:24:50 UTC