RE: [regrep] [Joe's Comments, Part 4 of 4 - Web Services Profile] RE: [regrep] RE: ACTION ITEM

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Please see comments below marked with [JMC] (sorry for the delay in
responding).

Thanks,
Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514  
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:45 AM
> To: Chiusano Joseph
> Cc: ebXML Regrep
> Subject: Re: [regrep] [Joe's Comments, Part 4 of 4 - Web 
> Services Profile] RE: [regrep] RE: ACTION ITEM
> 
> Thank you Joe for another round of thorough comments on the document.
> 
> The next version will address these and all other comments 
> received. Thanks.
> 
> Question/comments to selected feedback inline below...
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >Line 1159: Would it be clearer to use "yes" or "no", rather 
> than "1" or "0"? Same comment applies to other such cases.
> >  
> Recall some time back in our SQL Schema binding we chose to 
> use "1" and "0" instead of "true" or "false" mainly due to 
> inconsistent support for boolean types in relational 
> databases. The queries are a mpping to relational schema and 
> therefor using "1" or "0".

[JMC] Sounds good.

> >Line 1164, "that are used by the objects being discovered": 
> We introduce the cited text on this line, and use it often 
> afterward. Why can't we say "of wsdl:portType" instances (and 
> similarly for the subsequent cases)? Isn't it understood that 
> the objects being discovered are WSDL documents? Or am I 
> misunderstanding what the cited text means?
> >  
> No. Actually object being discovered may be an entire WSDL 
> document or it can be a WSDL Server, port, binding or portType.
> Maybe we should replace:
> 
> "that are used by the objects being discovered"
> 
> With:
> 
> "that are used by the WSDL objects being discovered"

[JMC] Or that are used by the WSDL documents being discovered"? (we
don't use WSDL "objects" anywhere, but we use WSDL "documents" often)

End of Joe's comments.

> 
> >Line 1181, example: We state that the example will include 
> SOAP over HTTP, but there is no "$binding.transportType" 
> parameter included. Should we add one, with Value of "HTTP"? 
> Same applies to later examples.
> >  
> Good catch. Thanks.
> >Line 1261, example: Add $port.accessURI to the description 
> above the example.
> >  
> Good catch. Thanks.
> 
> >General: I didn't see a reference to the first version of 
> this document (when it was a Technical Note), in March 2003. 
> Should we add one? Perhaps we can state at the front the that 
> version has been superceded.
> >
> >  
> +1 we should make the connection and relationship clear. Will 
> do. Thanks
> very much for your valuable contribution Joe.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
> 
> 
>