Lists Home |
Date Index |
Not to mention
xml:mustUnderstand="7": receiver may misunderstand. This is also very common
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Rodgers [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 01 April 2005 11:55
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the
> mustUnderstand model of SOA communications (was: Re: What
> Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST System Can't?)
> You forgot:
> xml:mustUnderstand="6" - reciever must understand each and
> every meaning
> of the message both explicit and by inference from supporting
> for example, the timestamp of the message.
> Sean McGrath wrote:
> > Whatever about the pros and cons of REST versus SOAP, I think it is
> > abundantly clear that the mustUnderstand model  is a key
> concept in
> > developing loosely coupled systems that can evolve independently.
> > I would like to suggest that the mustUnderstand model is
> > important that it should be added to the xml namespace alongside
> > xml:space and xml:lang.
> > I'm a big fan of conceptualising XML message exchange in terms of
> > Speech Acts. To make the most of the power of this abstraction, I
> > think it is necessary to extend the coarse boolean mustUnderstand
> > model into a more fine grained model that matches the way
> speech acts
> > are used in the real world.
> > I would like to suggest that xml:mustUnderstand be an
> enumeration with
> > a number of positive integer values, the semantics of
> which, should be
> > part of the specification. I can think of five.
> > Additions/comments on these welcome:
> > xml:mustUnderstand="0" - It is permissable for the recipient to not
> > understand the message fragment. No specific directions about the
> > speech act semantics in this case.
> > xml:mustUnderstand="1" - The message fragment must be understood,
> > otherwise the conversation must fail.
> > xml:mustUnderstand="2" - reciever must claim to understand,
> even if it
> > does not. The sender should have not be able to tell whether or not
> > the receiver really understands or is simply claiming to
> > understand. This is particularly useful in the service industries.
> > xml:mustUnderstand="3" - receiver may at first issue one or more
> > failure responses indicating that it does not understand the message
> > fragment. Then, without any action from the sender other
> than retries,
> > the receiver begins to understand the message fragment.
> This has many
> > applications in the political arena.
> > xml:mustUnderstand="4" - reciever may claim to understand
> the message
> > fragment one or more times and then begin issuing failure
> > responses. The failure responses should indicate that the
> message was
> > never understood and assert that the receivers behavior has been
> > consistent in this regard all along. This has many
> applications in the
> > media and in academia.
> > xml:mustUnderstand="5" - reciever may claim not to understand but,
> > unknown to the sender, may act upon the message fragment. This has
> > many applications in e-commerce.
> > Thoughts?
> > Sean
> > seanmcgrath.blogspot.com
> > 
> > 
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>