OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] some editorial comments on the UDDI-WSDL TN


Sam,

Thanks, as always, for your comments.  I have incorporated all of them
except the one relating to footnote 3 into the version that I have sent to
the co-chairs and which will hopefully go to vote soon.

I was keen from the outset that we not try and produce a best practice for
how to write WSDL in general but I think this footnote is reasonable as it
speaks about a different set of assumptions around what a service is between
UDDI and WSDL in general.

John Colgrave
IBM


-----Original Message-----
From: Wai-Kwong Sam LEE [mailto:Sam.Lee@oracle.com] 
Sent: 18 June 2003 20:54
To: John Colgrave; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] some editorial comments on the UDDI-WSDL TN

John,

I took a pass on the latest revision you sent to me. The following is some 
collective editorial feedback based on the latest revision:

1.1 Goals and Requirements
================================
line 188-189: It'd be good if we also mention discovery on the
businessService 
level in the motivation. For example:
Given the namespace and/or local name of a wsdl:service, find the 
businessService that represents that service.


Footnote 3 in Section 2.4.3 wsdl:service -> uddi:businessService
==================================================================
(I believe it was discussed before but I did not recall the decision.)
The statement in footnote 3, while I (and many people) do agree, is somewhat

out-of-scope (it's strictly a wsdl modeling issue) and may not be
appropriate. 
If it's been determined that we should still have the statement, that's fine

(not a show stopper).


tModel XML snippets in Section 3
==================================
The tModel XML snippets do not follow uddi schema: The overviewDoc should
appear 
before categoryBag. Example: the portType tModel in 3.2.1


B.7 Protocol Categorization (and B.8 Transport Categorization)
===============================================================
It'd be good to further specify what it means by "tModel that represents a 
protocol": tModels classified as protocol in uddi-org:types categorization
scheme.

Suggested revised text:
Valid values for this category system are tModelKeys. The content of the 
keyValue attribute in a keyedReference that refers to this tModel is the 
tModelKey of the tModel that represents a protocol. The protocol tModel
SHOULD 
be classified as "protocol" in the uddi-org:types categorization scheme.

A similar clarification could be made in transport:
Valid values for this category system are tModelKeys. The content of the 
keyValue attribute in a keyedReference that refers to this tModel is the 
tModelKey of the tModel that represents a transport. The transport tModel
SHOULD 
be classified as "transport" in the uddi-org:types categorization scheme.



- sam


You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgro
up.php



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]