RE: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Title: RE: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93

Tom:
inline

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:05 AM
To: Jacques Durand
Cc: WSRM (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93

Jacques Durand wrote:

> Here is my suggested edits for spec 0.93, covering Sections 1 and 2.
> -Jacques
>
> 1.--------------------------
> Section 1.6: "Examples of Messages..."
> This section should appear much further in the doc
> after the protocol elements have been described in detail.
> No reader will expect to see these examples here, or to understand them
> that early...
>
How about at the end of section 3?

<JD> yes .

> 2.--------------------------
>
> Section 1.
> (from Tue 3 meeting minutes)
> RM Capability Text not yet put in the spec.
>
I thought we agreed to wait until resolution of wsdl annotation before
adding the capability section.

<JD> OK, but was I mislead by minutes of Tue 3 meeting?

> 3.--------------------------
>
> Section 2.1: "Overview of Messaging Model"
> Propose to replace the subsection titles (e.g. "Request/Response
> Messaging Model")
> with "Request/Response Signaling Pattern", because Messaging Model
> designates the
> whole set of the three types of signaling described here (reusing the
> term
> Messaging model to name parts of the "Messaging Model" is confusing.
> Or we should at least title "Messaging Models". But I think "Model"
> should be
> the whole set.).
>
Signaling pattern is a new term which would need to be defined.,  I
prefer the plural  "models".  Signalling connotes telecom mechanisms,
like ss7 to me.

<JD> that would at least be more consistent. I would still contend
that "signaling" is also used in messaging (e.g. Rosettanet).

> Propose also to replace:
> "There are three ways to send back Acknowledgment message or Fault
> message as
> described as follows:"
> with:
> "There are three ways to do signaling, i.e. send back an
> Acknowledgment message or
> a Fault message. They are called here "signaling patterns""
> As well as at other places in this section.
>
We already have the term Reply pattern.  Are you suggesting to change
the name to signalling pattern?

<JD> no, not at all. But now that you mention it, it seems to me that
these "Messaging Models" are nothing else than our "Reply Patterns"...
So shouldn't we use in fact "Messaging Reply Pattern" (English expr,
not the element name ReplyPattern) to designate each of the three models,
 in this Messaging Model section (instead of my Signaling Patterns)?
At the very least the current spec is guilty of not explicitly refering to each
of these "messaging models" when introducing the reply patterns.

Jacques