Web Services Description Requirements
`
`Web Services Description Requirements
`W3C Working Draft 28 October 2002
`
`This version:
`http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028
`Latest version:
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs
`Previous version:
`http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20020429
`Editor:
`Jeffrey C. Schlimmer, Microsoft
`
`This document is also available in these non-normative formats: XML, PS, PDF, and TXT.
`
`Copyright © 2002 W3C® (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use, and
`software licensing rules apply.
`
`Abstract
`
`This document describes the Web Services Description Working Group's requirements for the Web
`Services Description specification.
`
`Status of this Document
`
`This is a W3C Last Call Working Draft of the Web Services Description Requirements document. It
`is a chartered deliverable of the Web Services Description Working Group (WG), which is part of
`the Web Services Activity. This document represents the current consensus within the Working
`Group about Web Services Description requirements. The Working Group does not intend to take
`this document further than Last Call, except to update this document in response to comments and
`requests from other Working Groups and the public.
`
`The Last Call review period ends on 31 December 2002. Comments on this document should be
`sent to public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org (public archive). It is inappropriate to send discussion
`emails to this address.
`
`Discussion of this document takes place on the public www-ws-desc@w3.org mailing list (public
`archive) per the email communication rules in the Web Services Description Working Group
`Charter.
`
`Patent disclosures relevant to this specification may be found on the Working Group's patent
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`disclosure page.
`
`This is a public W3C Working Draft. It is a draft document and may be updated, replaced, or
`obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as
`reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress". A list of all W3C technical
`reports can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`1 Notations
`2 Definitions
` 2.1 Non-normative definitions
` 2.2 Normative definitions
`3 Relationship to WG Charter
`4 Requirements
` 4.1 General
` 4.2 Simplicity
` 4.3 Interface Description
` 4.4 Description of Interactions with a Service
` 4.5 Messages and Types
` 4.6 Service Types
` 4.7 InterfaceBindings
` 4.8 Reusability
` 4.9 Extensibility
` 4.10 Versioning
` 4.11 Security
` 4.12 Mapping to the Semantic Web
`5 Requirements from other W3C WGs
` 5.1 XML Protocol
` 5.2 XForms
` 5.3 RDF
` 5.4 P3P
`
`Appendices
`
`A References
`B Acknowledgments (Non-Normative)
`
`1 Notations
`
`The following terminology and typographical conventions have been used in this document.
`
`The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
`"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
`interpreted in a manner similar to that described in [IETF RFC 2119]. (Changes from [IETF RFC
`2119] are indicated with emphasis.)
`
`MUST, REQUIRED, SHALL
`
`The requirement is an absolute requirement. The specification produced by the WG must
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`address this requirement.
`
`SHOULD, RECOMMENDED
`
`There may exist valid reasons for the WG to ignore this requirement, but the implications of
`doing so must be understood and weighed before doing so.
`
`MAY, OPTIONAL
`
`The requirement is truly optional. The WG may choose to omit the requirement for the sake
`of scope or schedule.
`
`For the sake of process and clarity, each requirement is annotated with meta data.
`
`Each requirement has an identification number. The numbers are arbitrary and do not imply
`any ordering or significance.
`Draft requirements are annotated to indicate their review status within the WG:
`
`[Draft]
`A candidate requirement the WG is actively considering but has not yet reached
`consensus on.
`
`To indicate their source, requirements may be annotated with the initials of the original
`submitter, 'Charter' (from [WSD Charter]), or 'WG' (from WG discussion).
`
`2 Definitions
`
`The definitions in this section are drawn primarily from [WSDL 1.1] and are intended to be used for
`purposes of discussion. They are not intended to constrain the results of the WG.
`
`2.1 Non-normative definitions
`
`Web Service
`
`[Definition: A Web Service is a software application identified by a URI [IETF RFC 2396],
`whose interfaces and binding are capable of being defined, described and discovered by
`XML artifacts and supports direct interactions with other software applications using XML
`based messages via Internet-based protocols. ]
`
`Client
`
`[Definition: A Client is a software that makes use of a Web Service, acting as its 'user' or
`'customer'.]
`
`2.2 Normative definitions
`
`Message
`
`[Definition: A Message is the basic unit of communication between a Web Service and a
`Client; data to be communicated to or from a Web Service as a single logical transmission.]
`
`Operation
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`[Definition: A sequence of Messages related to a single Web Service action is called an
`Operation.]
`
`Interface (AKA Port Type)
`
`[Definition: A logical grouping of operations. An Interface represents an abstract Web
`Service type, independent of transmission protocol and data format.]
`
`InterfaceBinding
`
`[Definition: An association between an Interface, a concrete protocol and/or a data format. An
`InterfaceBinding specifies the protocol and/or data format to be used in transmitting
`Messages defined by the associated Interface.]
`
`EndPoint (AKA Port)
`
`[Definition: An association between a fully-specified InterfaceBinding and a network address,
`specified by a URI [IETF RFC 2396], that may be used to communicate with an instance of a
`Web Service. An EndPoint indicates a specific location for accessing a Web Service using a
`specific protocol and data format.]
`
`Service
`
`[Definition: A collection of EndPoints is called Service.]
`3 Relationship to WG Charter
`
`The Web Services Description WG Charter [WSD Charter] has two sections describing what is in-
`scope and what is out-of-scope of the problem space defined for the WG. The WG considers all
`the requirements in Section 1 of [WSD Charter] to be in-scope per the Charter.
`
`Reviewers and readers should be familiar with the Web Services Description WG Charter [WSD
`Charter] because it provides the critical context for the requirements and any discussion of them.
`
`4 Requirements
`
`4.1 General
`
`R001
`
`R004
`
`R099
`
`The description language MUST allow any programming model, transport, or protocol for
`communication between peers. (From the Charter. Last revised 23 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST describe constructs using the [XML Information Set] model
`(similar to the SOAP 1.2 specifications [SOAP 1.2 Part 1]). (From JS. Last revised 21 Feb
`2002.)
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`Processors of the description language MUST support XML Schema
`(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema). See also [XML Schema Part 1]. (From WG
`discussion. Last discussed 21 Feb 2002.)
`
`R100
`
`R098
`
`R005
`
`R007
`
`R003
`
`R105
`
`R010
`
`R124
`
`The description language MUST allow other type systems besides XML Schema
`(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema) via extensibility. (From WG discussion. Last
`discussed 21 Feb 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) schema and examples MUST be written in XML Schema and
`SHOULD be written in the latest public W3C XML Schema Recommendation. (From WG
`discussion. Last revised 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST correct errors/inconsistencies in [WSDL 1.1]. (From KL. Last
`revised 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST provide detailed examples, including on-the-wire messages.
`(From KL. Last revised 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD use available XML technologies. (From JS. Last revised
`10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD support Web Services that operate on resource
`constrained devices. (From YF. Last discussed 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD use consistent terminology across all sections of the
`specification(s). (From KL. Last revised 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG MUST register a MIME type for WSDL (perhaps application/wsdl+xml). (From WG
`discussion. Last revised 27 Jun 2002.)
`
`4.2 Simplicity
`
`R013
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST be simple to understand and implement correctly. The
`description language MUST be simple to use. (From the Charter. Last discussed 7 Mar
`2002.)
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`R014
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD be compatible with existing Web infrastructure. (From the
`Charter. Last discussed 7 Mar 2002.)
`
`4.3 Interface Description
`
`R021
`
`R022
`
`R054
`
`R041
`
`R116
`
`R083
`
`R026
`
`R123
`
`R042
`
`R117
`
`The description language MUST describe the Messages accepted and generated by the Web
`Service. (From the Charter. Last revised 21 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing application-level error Messages (AKA
`faults) generated by the Web Service. (From the Charter. Last revised 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST describe Messages independent from their use in message
`exchange patterns and/or InterfaceBindings. (From YF. Last revised 17 Oct 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing sets of Operations that form a logical group.
`(From JS. Last revised 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing abstract policies required or offered by
`Services. (From GD. Last revised 11 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST separate design-time from run-time information. (From JS.
`Last discussed 11 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST provide human-readable comment capabilities. (From the
`Charter. Last discussed 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The content model for human-readable comment capabilities MUST be open. (From RD. Last
`discussed 11 June 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD allow deriving one Interface from another by extension of
`the logical group of Messages. (From JS. Last discussed 11 June 2002.)
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`The description language SHOULD allow specifying QoS-like policies and mechanisms of a
`Web Service. For instance, an indication of how long it is going to take a Web Service to
`process the request. (From WG discussion. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`4.4 Description of Interactions with a Service
`
`R036
`
`R044
`
`R097
`
`R110
`
`R094
`
`The description language MUST allow describing the functionality associated with one-way
`messages (to and from the service described), request-response, solicit-response, and
`faults. (From the Charter. Last revised 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD allow describing both application data and context data of
`a Service. (From PF. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD allow describing asynchronous message exchange
`patterns. (From IS. Last discussed 11 April 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD allow indicating how long a Web Service is going to take
`to process the request. This is just a hint to the Client, and the Web Service would not be
`obligated to respect what it advertised. (From WV. Special case of R117.)
`
`The description language MAY allow describing events and output-oriented Operations. The
`description language MAY be very specific about events, defining a special type of a
`Message or even a separate definition entity. (From IS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`4.5 Messages and Types
`
`R046
`
`R085
`
`The description language MUST describe Messages independent from transfer encodings.
`(From JS. Last discussed 17 Oct 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD allow describing Messages that include references (URIs)
`to typed referents, both values and Services. (From PP. Last discussed 11 April, 2002.)
`
`4.6 Service Types
`
`R118
`
`The description language SHOULD group Interfaces into a Service type. (From JS. Last
`discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`R058
`
`The description language SHOULD allow deriving one Service type from another by
`extension of the logical group of InterfaceBindings. (From JS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`4.7 InterfaceBindings
`
`R081
`
`R114
`
`R060
`
`R068
`
`R052
`
`R111
`
`R066
`
`R028
`
`R113
`
`The description language MUST describe EndPoint location using URIs. (From JS.)
`
`The description language MUST allow unambiguously mapping any on-the-wire Message to
`an Operation. (From WG discussion. Last revised 4 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow specifying an association between an Interface and
`one or more concrete protocols and/or data formats. (From the Charter. Last revised 12 Apr
`2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow binding of transport characteristics independently of
`data marshalling characteristics. (From PF. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing InterfaceBindings to other protocols
`besides those described in the specification. (From JS. Last revised 11 April 2002.)
`
`The WG MUST provide a normative description of the InterfaceBinding for HTTP/1.1 [IETF
`RFC 2616] GET and POST. (From the Charter. Last revised 28 Mar 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow binding Interfaces to transports other than HTTP/1.1
`[IETF RFC 2616]. (From JS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing the structure of incoming and outgoing
`SOAP 1.2 messages [SOAP 1.2 Part 1], including the contents, encoding, target, and
`optionality of SOAP 1.2 Header and Body blocks, SOAP RPC blocks, and SOAP Faults.
`(From JJM. Last revised 12 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing which SOAP features are offered by or
`required by an Operation or a Service. (From GD. Last revised 4 Apr 2002.)
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`R065
`
`R062
`
`R125
`
`R031
`
`The WG MUST provide a normative description of the InterfaceBinding for SOAP 1.2 over
`HTTP/1.1. (From JS. Last revised 28 Mar 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST ensure that the SOAP 1.2 InterfaceBinding is capable of
`describing transports other than HTTP. (From the Charter. Last revised 28 Mar 2002.)
`
`The normative description of the InterfaceBinding for SOAP 1.2 MUST support the SOAP 1.2
`MEP for HTTP GET in and HTTP SOAP out. (From TAG. Last discussed 26 Sep 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD support SOAP 1.2 intermediaries. (From JJM. Last
`discussed 11 April 2002.)
`
`4.8 Reusability
`
`R071
`
`R072
`
`The description language MUST allow partitioning a description across multiple files. (From
`JS.)
`
`The description language MUST allow using a description fragment in more than one
`description. (From JS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`4.9 Extensibility
`
`R012
`
`The description language MUST support the kind of extensibility actually seen on the Web:
`disparity of document formats and protocols used to communicate, mixing of XML
`vocabularies using XML namespaces, development of solutions in a distributed environment
`without a central authority, etc. In particular, the description language MUST support
`distributed extensibility. (From the Charter. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`R067
`
`R074
`
`The description language MUST allow for extension in description language components,
`including at least message, port type, binding, and service. (From WG discussion. Last
`discussed 17 Oct 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow indicating whether a given extension is required or
`optional. (From JS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`4.10 Versioning
`
`R075
`
`R119
`
`The description language MUST allow identifying versions of Services. (From PF. Last
`discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow identifying versions of descriptions. (From PF. Last
`discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`4.11 Security
`
`R115
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD define an equivalence relation on Service descriptions.
`(From SW. Last discussed 17 Oct 2002.)
`
`4.12 Mapping to the Semantic Web
`
`R070
`
`R120
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST allow providing a mapping from the description language to
`[RDF]. (From the Charter. Last revised 11 April, 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST ensure that all conceptual elements in the description of
`Messages are addressable by a URI reference [IETF RFC 2396]. (From the Semantic Web.
`Last discussed 11 June 2002.)
`
`5 Requirements from other W3C WGs
`
`These are requirements submitted by other W3C Working Groups and Activities.
`
`5.1 XML Protocol
`
`5.2 XForms
`
`5.3 RDF
`
`5.4 P3P
`
`A References
`
`RDF
`
`Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification, Ora Lassila, R.
`Swick, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 22 February 1999. This version of the
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`
`Resource Description Framework Model and Syntax Recommendation is
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222. The latest version of Resource
`Description Framework Model and Syntax is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-
`syntax.
`IETF RFC 2046
`Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types, N. Freed, N.
`Borenstein Author. Internet Engineering Task Force, November 1996. Available at
`http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt.
`IETF RFC 2119
`Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, S. Bradner, Author. Internet
`Engineering Task Force, June 1999. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt.
`IETF RFC 2396
`Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter,
`Authors. Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998. Available at
`http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt.
`IETF RFC 2616
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J. Mogul, H. Frystyk, L.
`Masinter, P. Leach, T. Berners-Lee, Authors. Internet Engineering Task Force, June 1999.
`Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt.
`SOAP 1.2 Part 1
`SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework, M. Gudgin, M. Hadley, N. Mendelsohn, J-
`J. Moreau, and H. F. Nielsen, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 26 June 2002. This
`version of the SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1 Specification is http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-
`soap12-part1-20020626. The latest version of SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1 is available at
`http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1.
`WSD Charter
`Web Services Description Working Group Charter, J. Marsh, P. Le Hégaret. World Wide Web
`Consortium, 26 January 2002. Available at http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-desc-charter.
`WSDL 1.1
`Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, E. Christensen, F. Curbera, G. Meredith,
`and S. Weerawarana, Authors. World Wide Web Consortium, 15 March 2002. This version of
`the Web Services Description Language Specification is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-
`wsdl-20010315. The latest version of Web Services Description Language is available at
`http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.
`XML 1.0
`Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition), T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-
`McQueen, and E. Maler, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 10 February 1998, revised 6
`October 2000. This version of the XML 1.0 Recommendation is
`http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006. The latest version of XML 1.0 is available at
`http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml.
`XML Information Set
`XML Information Set, J. Cowan and R. Tobin, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 24
`October 2001. This version of the XML Information Set Recommendation is
`http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-infoset-20011024. The latest version of XML
`Information Set is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset.
`XML Schema Part 1
`XML Schema Part 1: Structures, H. Thompson, D. Beech, M. Maloney, and N. Mendelsohn,
`Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 2 May 2001. This version of the XML Part 1
`Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502. The latest
`version of XML Schema Part 1 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1.
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Web Services Description Requirements
`B Acknowledgments (Non-Normative)
`
`This document is the work of the W3C Web Services Description Working Group.
`
`The people who have contributed to discussions on www-ws-desc@w3.org are also gratefully
`acknowledged.
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/[8/15/2017 9:32:14 AM]
`
`TELESIGN EX1012
`Page 12
`
`