[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 cc: 05/04/2002 06:32 Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R413] PM 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 414-415 Reword #4: By reference to the value(s) of one or more properties already defined. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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