(r3) WSBasicProfileV1RFC < IVOA

IVOA Web>WSBasicProfileV1RFC (revision 3) (raw view)~~EditAttach~~
---+ WS Basic Profile RFC (Version 1.0)

This document is a "Request for Comment" (RFC) for the Proposed Recommendation "IVOA Web Services Basic Profile V1.0". The latest version of the specification (26-02-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010.

This specification presents the IVOA position and interpretation of third-party industry standards (WS-I) relating to SOAP-based web services. In this respect, it is a complement to the IVOA Recommendation "IVOA Single-Sign-On Profile" which describes the IVOA standpoint on third-party industry security practices. Given the nature of the specification, there are no specific reference implementations, although any IVOA SOAP-based web service could be regarded as one, e.g. any of the VOSpace 1.0 or 1.1 reference implementations. 

In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your !WikiName so that authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment.

Additional discussion about any of the comments or responses can be conducted on the GWS WG mailing list, grid@ivoa.net. However, please be sure to enter your initial comments here for full consideration in any future revisions of this document

<hr noshade>

---++ Comments from the community
   * Sample comment by TWiki.WikiName
      * Response (by TWiki.WikiName)

   * Comments by BobHanisch (5 April 2010)

General comment:  It is very odd looking to have reference citations like this [#] in section headings.  It would make more sense to move them to the first point in the main body where the reference is cited, typically in the first sentence of the relevant section.

Preface materials

Change "Conformance related definitions" to "Conformance-Related Definitions"

Section 2, the opening paragraphs, prior to Section 2.1, would fit better in the general introduction, Section 1.  Otherwise one encounters "WS-I" in the title to Section 2, and only later do you find out what it means.

Section 2, 2nd paragraph, "non-property" should be "non-proprietary"

Section 2.1, the second remark "Concerning the Discovery topic.." seems like it should be resolved here.  In any case, "undergoing" should be "ongoing".

What is "NOTE HERE" supposed to mean?

Section 2.2, change the comma to a semicolon after "at the same level"

The last sentence about RFC 2119 etc. is redundant with the previous section on Conformance-Related Definitions.

Section 3, change "+" symbols to words, "and the" or "with the addition of", etc.

Section 4, what is "This"?  I think what is meant is "The WS-I Attachment Profile..."

Sentence "It was decided at IVOA Kyoto..." is conversational and does not belong in the standard.  Just say "This standard does not define an attachment profile."

Section 6 -- so what is the point here?  This section should be rewritten, removing the casual language and being specific.  It is not important that something was shown at Pune in 2004, but rather what has been demonstrated or not and what is the recommendation.

Section 7 -- again, what is the point?  What is the recommendation?

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

There is no need for a Section 8.2.1, it being the only topic in 8.2.  The last sentence is redundant with Section 4.

Are these rules ones being defined here, or references to rules in the various WS-I documents?  

There is no need for a Section 8.3.1, it being the only topic in 8.3.  In R0131, "turning" should be "returning".

Section 9 seems at least partly redundant with Section 6, and the sentence "A guide about...could be provided if needed." is not very helpful!

I do not understand what is meant in 9.1 Use Cases.  How is this helpful?  Is Use Cases supposed to be Section 9.2, and Assertion Definition.. supposed to be 9.3?  If not, there is no need for a Section 9.1.

Section 10 -- wording is too casual.  "The conformance could be claimed..."  Could?  Is?  And later, "...could be useful..."  Would it be useful or not?

Section 11 -- the change log is ambiguous.  What does it mean to "take into account"?  What rules were removed?  To what version are these changes related?

Rather than repeating text from RFC 2119 in Appendix A, deleted the Appendix and put in an actual citation of RFC 2119.











<br/>
<!--
      * Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME = %MAINWEB%.TWikiAdminGroup
-->
Topic revision: r3 - 2010-04-05 - BobHanisch
IVOA
Log in or Register
IVOA.net
Wiki Home
WebChanges
WebTopicList
WebStatistics
Twiki Meta & Help
IVOA
Know
Main
Sandbox
TWiki
TWiki intro
TWiki tutorial
User registration
Notify me
Working Groups
Interest Groups
Time Domain
Committees
Stds&Procs
www.ivoa.net
Documents
Events
Members
XML Schema