MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
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
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.