RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed

Joseph,

The WG has discussed your pushback and provided the slightly updated
resolution stated below. We hope this addresses the issue better. If you
cannot accept this resolution then please send your concerns to the
<xml-dist-app@w3.org> mailing list [3] indicating the issue number of
the issue in the subject.

Resolution
----------

The relationship between a role and a role name is similar to that
between a resource and a URI. The role name is just an identifier
identifying the role. In fact, given that the role name is a URI, a role
is therefore a resource.

In the current text [1], I would tend to agree with you that it would be
more appropriate to say that we define roles who have known URIs rather
than saying that we define role names. Throughout the spec we talk about
roles and not just their names.

In response to your comment, would the editorial clarification below
make the definition of roles easier to pinpoint?

* * * * * 

This specification defines the following roles which have special
significance in a SOAP message (see 2.6 Processing SOAP Messages):

* The role identified by the URI
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/next". Each SOAP
intermediary and the ultimate SOAP receiver MUST act in this role and
MAY additionally assume zero or more other SOAP roles.

* The role identified by the URI
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/none". SOAP nodes MUST NOT
act in this role.

* The role identified by the URI
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver". To
establish itself as an ultimate SOAP receiver a SOAP node MUST act in
this role. SOAP intermediaries MUST NOT act in this role.

In addition to those described above, other roles MAY be defined as
necessary to meet the needs of SOAP applications.

In addition to the three SOAP roles defined above, other roles MAY be
defined as necessary to meet the needs of SOAP applications.

* * * * *

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#soaproles
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x250
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org] 
>Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 12:09
>To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; 'xmlp-comments@w3.org'
>Cc: Hoelzing, Gerd; xml-dist-app@w3.org
>Subject: Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
>
>
>
>
>I'm not sure if my question has been answered. I'm looking at 
>[3] and the 
>text reads, "Each SOAP intermediary and the ultimate SOAP 
>receiver MUST act 
>in this role and MAY additionally assume zero or more other 
>SOAP roles." I 
>think the change is that this is supposed to be a definition 
>of the "role 
>name" instead of the (previous) "role". But it still doesn't seem that 
>useful a definition to me unless the definition of the NEXT 
>role is that 
>it's the thing which all SOAP nodes are. However, I suspect 
>the difficulty 
>here is that there's not a specific location in the specification that 
>defines what a NEXT agent does, instead it's distributed 
>throughout the 
>spec...?
>
>On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:27 pm, 
>noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> If the members of the WG believe this does not reflect the intended 
>> resolution, please let the editors know ASAP.  xmlp-comments 
>should be 
>> deleted from the distribution of any replies to this note.  
>Thank you.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x250
>> [2] 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Aug/0034.html
>> [3] 
>http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12->part1.xml#soaproles
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 19:07:11 UTC