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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsia message

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

Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R413]

The most significant value we have found over time to a richer
specification of constraints is the ability of a Consumer to perform
validation prior to invoking the Producer. This form of delegation enables
higher performance detection of value problems leading to an improved user
experience. I think as part of these rewrites, we do need to get to
capitalizing the imperative of the requirement (SHOULD in this case) to
call out whether it is a base item that will always be there or an
extensibility type requirement. I would suggets rewording #4 to:
      4. Computational constraints among the set of Producer properties.

                      Eilon Reshef                                                                                
                      <eilon.reshef@webc        To:       "'Alan Kropp'" <akropp@epicentric.com>,                 
                      ollage.com>                wsia@lists.oasis-open.org                                        
                      05/04/2002 06:32          Subject:  RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R413]                     

I *think* I understand the intent but not necessarily the motivation. Are
rich semantic descriptions of property values and relations a *requirement*
or a "nice to have" feature of a particular API? I can see the value of
having *human-readable* meta-information (aids the user of the Web
Service). I can see the value of type constraints a-la Schema (mainly
helping the Consumer map properties into programming constructs). Can
anyone clarify the value of richer constraints?

Or, maybe, can we perhaps define this requirement as open for
extensibility, for example:
This specification should permit the Producer to specify additional
machine-readable semantic information regarding properties.
...which would lead to a construct such as Schema's <app-info> which allows
arbitrary (but not specified) type constraints and information.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Alan Kropp [mailto:akropp@epicentric.com]
      Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 9:10 PM
      To: 'wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'
      Subject: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R413]

      R413 [Expressiveness]
                      Producer properties should allow for the
      specification of
      validation constraints and/or logic at each of the following levels:
      1.      lexical
      2.      syntactic
      3.      semantic
      4.      Constraints linking two property elements, defining how the
      value of
      one may be computed from that of the other. Debate: CW, SR, AK, SF,
      SA. Also

              Reword #4:

              By reference to the value(s) of one or more properties

      To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
      manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC