W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

Re: [R505][i54] No a priori knowledge Requirement

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:28:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203111828.NAA12943@markbaker.ca>
To: pauld@mitre.org (Paul Denning)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, www-ws-arch@w3.org

> In my view, "Communicating parties" refers to the applications that make 
> use of a SOAP processor at a SOAP node.  The lack of a priori knowledge by 
> the communicating parties refers to a degree of transparency about the 
> underlying mechanisms used to transfer a SOAP envelope.  It relates to the 
> concept of layering, and separation of interface from implementation, where 
> higher layers make use of an interface to lower layer mechanisms rather 
> than duplicate the functions of those lower layer mechanisms.

If I interpreted that correctly, I respectfully disagree.  My view of it
is that it relates to the existence of shared application semantics.
For example, I know that I can invoke the GET method on any URI with a
HTTP URI scheme, or RETR on any URI with a FTP URI scheme, etc...  This
is a large part of the value of the generic interface provided by every
application protocol.

> The WSAWG charter's clause about "without third party agreement" gives us a 
> clue of the concern about a priori knowledge.  An example of a third party 
> agreement would be if new SOAP features (SOAP header block namespaces, 
> bindings, message exchange patterns, encoding styles, and fault codes) 
> could not be used unless W3C approved them.  This is NOT the case.  No W3C 
> approval is needed to define such new features.  Definition of such new 
> features without W3C knowledge will not necessarily break the compliance 
> with the SOAP 1.2 specification.

Agreed, but we're not going to get very far (even to the point of
worring about those issues you mention) without shared application
semantics, IMO.

> Based on the discussion above, I assert that the SOAP 1.2 specifications 
> meet the spirit of requirement R505 [1], and we can close issue 54 [2].

I'm glad, but do you accept my proposed text[1], or are you suggesting
new text to replace it?  (perhaps just followup on this one to

> However, since this requirement appears to be a matter for the WSAWG [4], I 
> recommend that the concepts surrounding a priori knowledge be examined by 
> the WSAWG.  The XMLP WG can open a new issue if the WSAWG determines that 
> SOAP needs to address some aspect of it.

Good idea, thanks.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Mar/0020.html

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 13:24:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:47 UTC