RE: [regrep] ACTION ITEM

["Breininger, Kathryn R" <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com>]

Thank you Ann for the thorough comments.  It is not too late, and we appreciate the review and thoughtfulness of your comments.  Our editors will be working with the comments, and will send any follow-up questions.

 

Thanks again,

Kathryn

 

Kathryn Breininger 
OASIS ebXML Registry TC Chair

Boeing Library Services
425-965-0182 phone

 

---

From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:atmanes@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 5:40 PM
To: Breininger, Kathryn R
Cc: ebXML Regrep
Subject: Re: [regrep] ACTION ITEM

Kathryn,

I suspect I missed your deadline, but I promised 
Farrukh that I would provide comments on the document. Here they are. 

Comments on ebXML Registry Profile for Web Services
V1.0 Draft 
3
21 September 2005

Title: This profile describes how to map WSDL 1.1 
to the registry, therefore I recommend that you name it "ebXML Registry Profile 
for WSDL 1.1". 

Overall comments: not all WSDL document will contain all 
parts (service [with ports], bindings, portTypes [with operations], messages, 
and types). (btw -- bindings have operations, and your WSDL data model doesn't 
show that.) A WSDL document may just define a portType, or a binding with an 
imported binding. The description of the WSDL object model makes it sound as if 
the only type of WSDL that can be registered is a WSDL containing a 
<service> definition.

Line 267. Missing period after PortType. 
Missing comma after "the next level".

Line 268. Missing comma after "the 
next level".

Line 270. "encapsulated one more" should be "encapsulates 
one or more".

Line 273. "contains one or more" should be "contains zero 
or more".

Line 281. Should begin with "A WSDL description contains zero 
or more binding elements." "The binding element" should be changed to "A binding 
element".

Section 2.3. Missing information: A binding element defines a 
binding of one or more operational elements, and its input, output, and fault 
messages.

Line 282. I suggest you remove "(typically SOAP)". .NET by 
default generates HTTP bindings for every service. 

Line 285. 
"definition" should be "definitions".

Section 2.5. Missing information: 
an Operation element also defines fault messages.

Section 2.6. schemas 
may be imported or defined inline.

Section 2.7. schemas may be imported 
or defined inline.

Section 4.2.4. In some cases you may not want to 
specify the access URI in the registry, and instead service consumers should 
obtain the access URI from another source (e.g., the WSDL file at runtime or 
from a broker). Therefore you should provide a mechanism to specify an 
alternative means to obtain the access URI.

Section 4.3.5. You should 
have a classification schema for the encoding scheme. (RPC style binding may use 
either SOAP encoding or literal) Also note that SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 permit 
different styles and encodings for different operations within a binding 
(although WS-I BP disallows this feature). Also, even if the input and output 
messages are RPC/encoded, headers and faults should be 
document/literal.

Section 6.2. Your required business rules are somewhat 
arbitrary. The first business rule will disallow any service developed using 
.NET, because all .NET services, by default, have HTTP bindings in addition to 
SOAP bindings. The second rule will disallow WS-I compliant services that 
implement rpc/literal bindings. It's much more important to make sure that the 
WSDL is valid -- not from a schema validation perspective, but from a semantic 
perspective. i.e., can a typical WSDL compiler generate a valid object model 
from the WSDL?

Line 976. Replace "??" with the appropriate 
reference.

Line 978. Remove "produces as output" from end of 
sentence.

Line 986. All occurrances of "URN" should be replaced with 
"URI".

Line 990. "URN" should be changed to "URI".

Line 991. "URN" 
should be changed to "URI".

Line 1019. "queries may hidden" should be 
"queries may be hidden"

Line 1034. Remove period after "well"

Line 
1036. "explore" should be "exploring".

Line 1041. "Association" should be 
"Associations"

Line 1042. "therfor" should be "therefore"

Line 
1062. "MUST are" should be "MUST be"

Line 1064. Should this be a header? 
(8.2?) If so, all subsequent headers in Chapter 8 must be 
adjusted.

Chapter 10: TBDs...

Line 1971. There's no reference to 
this implementation in the document, so the reference should be removed. 

Best regards,
Anne

On 10/26/05, Breininger, Kathryn R <kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com> wrote:

Please review the Web Services Profile document:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/download.php/14756/r
egrep-ws-profile-1.0-draft3.pdf   and send comments by November 3rd.  We
will be discussing this document and determining whether we are ready to
open a vote on it as a TC approved document.


Kathryn Breininger
CENTRAL Project Manager
Emerging Technologies
Boeing Library Services

425-965-0182 phone
425-237-3491 fax
kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com

> How was your service? Please click link below.......
> http://socal.web.boeing.com/ssglibsurvey/
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php