Difference: WSBasicProfileV1RFC (1 vs. 17)

Revision 172012-06-26 - root

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, JesusSalgado)

Approved.

-- MireilleLouys- 2010-12-01

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

I approve this document.

-- GretchenGreene - 3 Dec 2010

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

Approved.

-- SebastienDerriere - 03 Dec 2010

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

I approve the document. I have a few late (sorry) minor comments /typos. Some of them may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker.

  • p.2, Conformance-related definition, second paragraph, last sentence:
The IVO application is an application > An IVO application is... (?)
  • p.5, Section 1.3, second paragraph, last sentence: actual
  • p.5, Section 2.1: in the Security item, add a "," between confidentiality and authentication
  • p.6, Section 2.3, last sentence of the first paragraph: I have the impression that the sentence mixes the authors' evaluation of the MIME solution (too restrictive) and a fact coming from WS-I themselves, that they do not make mandatory to associate this profile with the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1. I may be wrong but some clarification would help the reader to understand where the two ideas come from.
  • p.8, R0121: The interface for returning table metadata (?)

Francoise, 30 November 2010

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

Approved.

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)

Thanks for having included the reference to the IVOA Architecture. You might want to add its link [12] into the reference section http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/IVOAArchitecture/20101123/index.html

One minor comment, for the posterity, the second paragraph of the Acknowledgments section "This work is based on discussions.... September 2006" looks a bit strange. I would propose to drop it.

I approve the document. ChristopheArviset


Revision 162010-12-03 - GretchenGreene

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, JesusSalgado)

Approved.

-- MireilleLouys- 2010-12-01

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Added:
>
>
I approve this document.

-- GretchenGreene - 3 Dec 2010

 

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

Approved.

-- SebastienDerriere - 03 Dec 2010

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

I approve the document. I have a few late (sorry) minor comments /typos. Some of them may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker.

  • p.2, Conformance-related definition, second paragraph, last sentence:
The IVO application is an application > An IVO application is... (?)
  • p.5, Section 1.3, second paragraph, last sentence: actual
  • p.5, Section 2.1: in the Security item, add a "," between confidentiality and authentication
  • p.6, Section 2.3, last sentence of the first paragraph: I have the impression that the sentence mixes the authors' evaluation of the MIME solution (too restrictive) and a fact coming from WS-I themselves, that they do not make mandatory to associate this profile with the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1. I may be wrong but some clarification would help the reader to understand where the two ideas come from.
  • p.8, R0121: The interface for returning table metadata (?)

Francoise, 30 November 2010

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

Approved.

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)

Thanks for having included the reference to the IVOA Architecture. You might want to add its link [12] into the reference section http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/IVOAArchitecture/20101123/index.html

One minor comment, for the posterity, the second paragraph of the Acknowledgments section "This work is based on discussions.... September 2006" looks a bit strange. I would propose to drop it.

I approve the document. ChristopheArviset


<--  
-->

Revision 152010-12-03 - SebastienDerriere

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, JesusSalgado)

Approved.

-- MireilleLouys- 2010-12-01

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

Added:
>
>
Approved.

-- SebastienDerriere - 03 Dec 2010

 

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

I approve the document. I have a few late (sorry) minor comments /typos. Some of them may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker.

  • p.2, Conformance-related definition, second paragraph, last sentence:
The IVO application is an application > An IVO application is... (?)
  • p.5, Section 1.3, second paragraph, last sentence: actual
  • p.5, Section 2.1: in the Security item, add a "," between confidentiality and authentication
  • p.6, Section 2.3, last sentence of the first paragraph: I have the impression that the sentence mixes the authors' evaluation of the MIME solution (too restrictive) and a fact coming from WS-I themselves, that they do not make mandatory to associate this profile with the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1. I may be wrong but some clarification would help the reader to understand where the two ideas come from.
  • p.8, R0121: The interface for returning table metadata (?)

Francoise, 30 November 2010

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

Approved.

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)

Thanks for having included the reference to the IVOA Architecture. You might want to add its link [12] into the reference section http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/IVOAArchitecture/20101123/index.html

One minor comment, for the posterity, the second paragraph of the Acknowledgments section "This work is based on discussions.... September 2006" looks a bit strange. I would propose to drop it.

I approve the document. ChristopheArviset


<--  
-->

Revision 142010-12-03 - ChristopheArviset

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, JesusSalgado)

Approved.

-- MireilleLouys- 2010-12-01

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

Deleted:
<
<

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

 

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

I approve the document. I have a few late (sorry) minor comments /typos. Some of them may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker.

  • p.2, Conformance-related definition, second paragraph, last sentence:
The IVO application is an application > An IVO application is... (?)
  • p.5, Section 1.3, second paragraph, last sentence: actual
  • p.5, Section 2.1: in the Security item, add a "," between confidentiality and authentication
  • p.6, Section 2.3, last sentence of the first paragraph: I have the impression that the sentence mixes the authors' evaluation of the MIME solution (too restrictive) and a fact coming from WS-I themselves, that they do not make mandatory to associate this profile with the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1. I may be wrong but some clarification would help the reader to understand where the two ideas come from.
  • p.8, R0121: The interface for returning table metadata (?)

Francoise, 30 November 2010

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

Approved.

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)

Thanks for having included the reference to the IVOA Architecture. You might want to add its link [12] into the reference section http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/IVOAArchitecture/20101123/index.html

One minor comment, for the posterity, the second paragraph of the Acknowledgments section "This work is based on discussions.... September 2006" looks a bit strange. I would propose to drop it.

I approve the document. ChristopheArviset


<--  
-->

Revision 132010-12-01 - MireilleLouys

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Changed:
<
<

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

>
>

Data Model (Mireille Louys, JesusSalgado)

Added:
>
>
Approved.

-- MireilleLouys- 2010-12-01

 

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

I approve the document. I have a few late (sorry) minor comments /typos. Some of them may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker.

  • p.2, Conformance-related definition, second paragraph, last sentence:
The IVO application is an application > An IVO application is... (?)
  • p.5, Section 1.3, second paragraph, last sentence: actual
  • p.5, Section 2.1: in the Security item, add a "," between confidentiality and authentication
  • p.6, Section 2.3, last sentence of the first paragraph: I have the impression that the sentence mixes the authors' evaluation of the MIME solution (too restrictive) and a fact coming from WS-I themselves, that they do not make mandatory to associate this profile with the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1. I may be wrong but some clarification would help the reader to understand where the two ideas come from.
  • p.8, R0121: The interface for returning table metadata (?)

Francoise, 30 November 2010

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

Approved.

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)

Thanks for having included the reference to the IVOA Architecture. You might want to add its link [12] into the reference section http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/IVOAArchitecture/20101123/index.html

One minor comment, for the posterity, the second paragraph of the Acknowledgments section "This work is based on discussions.... September 2006" looks a bit strange. I would propose to drop it.

I approve the document. ChristopheArviset


<--  
-->

Revision 122010-11-30 - ChristopheArviset

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

I approve the document. I have a few late (sorry) minor comments /typos. Some of them may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker.

  • p.2, Conformance-related definition, second paragraph, last sentence:
The IVO application is an application > An IVO application is... (?)
  • p.5, Section 1.3, second paragraph, last sentence: actual
  • p.5, Section 2.1: in the Security item, add a "," between confidentiality and authentication
  • p.6, Section 2.3, last sentence of the first paragraph: I have the impression that the sentence mixes the authors' evaluation of the MIME solution (too restrictive) and a fact coming from WS-I themselves, that they do not make mandatory to associate this profile with the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1. I may be wrong but some clarification would help the reader to understand where the two ideas come from.
  • p.8, R0121: The interface for returning table metadata (?)

Francoise, 30 November 2010

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

Approved.

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)

Added:
>
>
Thanks for having included the reference to the IVOA Architecture. You might want to add its link [12] into the reference section http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/IVOAArchitecture/20101123/index.html
 
Added:
>
>
One minor comment, for the posterity, the second paragraph of the Acknowledgments section "This work is based on discussions.... September 2006" looks a bit strange. I would propose to drop it.

I approve the document. ChristopheArviset

 
<--  
-->

Revision 112010-11-30 - HerveWozniak

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

I approve the document. I have a few late (sorry) minor comments /typos. Some of them may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker.

  • p.2, Conformance-related definition, second paragraph, last sentence:
The IVO application is an application > An IVO application is... (?)
  • p.5, Section 1.3, second paragraph, last sentence: actual
  • p.5, Section 2.1: in the Security item, add a "," between confidentiality and authentication
  • p.6, Section 2.3, last sentence of the first paragraph: I have the impression that the sentence mixes the authors' evaluation of the MIME solution (too restrictive) and a fact coming from WS-I themselves, that they do not make mandatory to associate this profile with the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1. I may be wrong but some clarification would help the reader to understand where the two ideas come from.
  • p.8, R0121: The interface for returning table metadata (?)

Francoise, 30 November 2010

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

Added:
>
>
Approved.
 

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)


<--  
-->

Revision 102010-11-30 - FrancoiseGenova

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

Added:
>
>
I approve the document. I have a few late (sorry) minor comments /typos. Some of them may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker.
  • p.2, Conformance-related definition, second paragraph, last sentence:
The IVO application is an application > An IVO application is... (?)
  • p.5, Section 1.3, second paragraph, last sentence: actual
  • p.5, Section 2.1: in the Security item, add a "," between confidentiality and authentication
  • p.6, Section 2.3, last sentence of the first paragraph: I have the impression that the sentence mixes the authors' evaluation of the MIME solution (too restrictive) and a fact coming from WS-I themselves, that they do not make mandatory to associate this profile with the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1. I may be wrong but some clarification would help the reader to understand where the two ideas come from.
  • p.8, R0121: The interface for returning table metadata (?)

Francoise, 30 November 2010

 

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)


<--  
-->

Revision 92010-11-29 - RobSeaman

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

Added:
>
>
Approved.

-- RobSeaman - 2010-11-29

 

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)


<--  
-->

Revision 82010-11-29 - MatthewGraham

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

Added:
>
>
I approve this most excellent document.

-- MatthewGraham - 29 Nov 2010

 

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)


<--  
-->

Revision 72010-11-29 - TomMcGlynn

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Added:
>
>
Approved. TomMcGlynn 2010-11-29
 

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)


<--  
-->

Revision 62010-11-23 - PatrickDowler

 

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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:

http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/

IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010

TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

--

All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

Added:
>
>
Approved.

-- PatrickDowler - 2010-11-23

 

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)


<--  
-->

Revision 52010-10-25 - MatthewGraham

 

WS Basic Profile RFC (Version 1.0)

Changed:
<
<
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:
>
>
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 (20-10-2010) can be found at:
 
Changed:
<
<
http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile
>
>
http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/WSBasicProfile/20101020/
 
Changed:
<
<
IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010.
>
>
IVOA Review Period: 24 Mar 2010 - 28 Apr 2010
 
Added:
>
>
TCG Review Period: 25 Oct 2010 - 25 Nov 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


Changed:
<
<

Comments from the community

>
>

Comments from the community during the RFC period

These comments are based on the 20100226 version:
Deleted:
<
<
 

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.

ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)

Preface materials

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

ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)

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."

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)

Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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".

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

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!

ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)

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.

it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)

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?

ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)

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

ok (response by AndreSchaaff)

Added:
>
>
--
 
Added:
>
>
All of these comments have been attended to in the latest version. -- MatthewGraham - 20Oct2010
 
Added:
>
>

Comments from TCG during TCG Review (25 Oct 2010 to 25 Nov 2010)

 
Added:
>
>

Applications (Tom McGlynn, Mark Taylor)

 
Added:
>
>

Data Access Layer (Patrick Dowler, Mike Fitzpatrick)

 
Added:
>
>

Data Model (Mireille Louys, AnitaRichards)

Grid&Web Sevices (Matthew Graham, Paul Harrison)

Registry (Ray Plante, Gretchen Greene)

Semantics (Sebastien Derriere, Norman Gray)

VOEvent (Rob Seaman, Roy Williams)

VO Query Language (Pedro Osuna, Yuji Shirasaki)

VOTable (Francois Ochsenbein)

Standard and Processes (Francoise Genova)

Data Curation & Preservation (Alberto Accommazzi)

KDD (Giuseppe Longo)

Theory (Herve Wozniak, Claudio Gheller)

TCG (Christophe Arviset, Severin Gaudet)

 


<--  
-->

Revision 42010-05-18 - AndreSchaaff

 

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


Comments from the community

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.

Added:
>
>
ok i agree, i have deleted the citations in the titles (response by AndreSchaaff)
 Preface materials

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

Added:
>
>
ok, done (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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.
Added:
>
>
ok, no problem to put it in the introduction part (response by AndreSchaaff)
 Section 2, 2nd paragraph, "non-property" should be "non-proprietary"
Added:
>
>
ok, it is changed (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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?

Added:
>
>
it is linked to your previous remark, the second remark and "NOT HERE" has to be deleted both (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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.

Added:
>
>
ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)
 Section 3, change "+" symbols to words, "and the" or "with the addition of", etc.
Added:
>
>
ok it is done (response by AndreSchaaff)
 Section 4, what is "This"? I think what is meant is "The WS-I Attachment Profile..."
Added:
>
>
ok i replace This by the full sentence (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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."
Added:
>
>
ok (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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?

Added:
>
>
ok, section 6 and 7 will be rewritten (response by AndreSchaaff)
 Section 8.1 is essentially self-referential and not helpful.
Added:
>
>
ok (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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.
Added:
>
>
ok (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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".

Added:
>
>
ok (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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!
Added:
>
>
ok, sentence about guideline is removed (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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.
Added:
>
>
it is not possible to provide generic use cases to test the services, so each service provider has to create use cases to test his services (unit tests) (response by AndreSchaaff)
 Section 10 -- wording is too casual. "The conformance could be claimed..." Could? Is? And later, "...could be useful..." Would it be useful or not?
Added:
>
>
ok changed to "is" (response by AndreSchaaff)
 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?
Added:
>
>
ok it will be argumented (response by AndreSchaaff)
 Rather than repeating text from RFC 2119 in Appendix A, deleted the Appendix and put in an actual citation of RFC 2119.
Changed:
<
<
>
>
ok (response by AndreSchaaff)
 


<--  
-->

Revision 32010-04-05 - BobHanisch

 

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


Comments from the community

Added:
>
>

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.

 


<--  
-->

Revision 22010-03-24 - MatthewGraham

 

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.

Added:
>
>
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


Comments from the community


<--  
-->

Revision 12010-03-24 - MatthewGraham

 

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.

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


Comments from the community


<--  
-->
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © 2008-2022 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback