5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`W3C
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`W30 Working Draft 29 April 2002
`
`This version:
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-regs-20020429 (available in HTML or
`XML)
`Latest version:
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-regs
`Editor:
`
`Jeffrey C. Schlimmer, Microsoft
`
`Copyright © 2002 W30 ®( MIT , INRIA , Keio), All Rights Reserved. W30 liability, trademark, document
`& and software licensing rules apply.
`
`
`Abstract
`
`This document describes the Web Services Description Working Group's
`requirements for the Web Services Description specification.
`
`Status of this Document
`
`This is the first W30 Working Draft of the Web Services Description Requirements
`document. It is a chartered deliverable of the Web Services Description Working
`Group (WG), which is part of the Web Services Activity. The Working Group has
`agreed to publish this document, although this document does not necessarily
`represent the consensus within the Working Group about Web Service Description
`requirements.
`
`Comments on this document should be sent to public—ws-desc-comments@w3.org
`(public archive). It is inappropriate to send discussion emails to this address.
`
`Discussion of this document takes place on the public www-ws-desc@w3.org mailing
`list (public archive) per the email communication rules in the Web Services
`Description Working Group Charter.
`
`Patent disclosures relevant to this specification may be found on the Working Group's
`patent disclosure page.
`
`0 Ez a ;
`
`Ԥ
`
`This is a public W30 Working Draft. It is a draft document and may be updated,
`http://www .w3.org/T R/ZOOZ/W D-ws—desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`1/13
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`ServiceNow v. HP
`
`lPR2015-OO707
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`replaced, or Obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C
`Working Drafts as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress".
`A list of all W3C technical reports can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`1 Notations
`2 Definitions
`2.1 Non-normative definitions
`2.2 Normative definitions
`
`3 Relationship to WG Charter
`4 Requirements
`4.1 General
`
`4.2 Simplicity
`4.3 Interface Description
`4.4 Description of Interactions with a Service
`4.5 Messages and Types
`4.6 Service Types
`4.7 InterfaceBindings
`4.8 Reusability
`4.9 Extensibility
`4.10 Versioning
`4.11 Security
`4.12 Mapping to the Semantic Web
`5 Requirements from other W3C WGs
`5.1 XML Protocol
`5.2 XForms
`5.3 RDF
`5.4 PSP
`
`Appendices
`
`A References
`
`B Acknowledgements (Non-Normative)
`C Change Log (Non-Normative)
`
`1 Notations
`
`The following terminology and typographical conventions have been used in this
`document.
`
`The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
`"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
`document are to be interpreted in a manner similar to that described in IETF RFC
`2119 . (Changes from ||ETF RFC 2119| are indicated with emphasis.)
`
`MUST, REQUIRED, SHALL
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws—desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`2/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`The requirement is an absolute requirement. The specification produced by the
`WG must address this requirement.
`
`SHOULD, RECOMMENDED
`
`There may exist valid reasons for the WG to ignore this requirement, but the
`implications of doing so must be understood and weighed before doing so.
`
`MAY, OPTIONAL
`
`The requirement is truly optional. The WG may choose to omit the requirement
`for the sake of scope or schedule.
`
`For the sake of process and clarity, each requirement is annotated with meta data.
`
`. Each requirement has an identification number. The numbers are arbitrary and
`do not imply any ordering or significance.
`
`. Draft requirements are annotated to indicate their review status within the WG:
`
`[Draft]
`
`A candidate requirement the WG is actively considering but has not yet
`reached consensus on.
`
`. To indicate their source, requirements may be annotated with the initials of the
`original submitter, 'Charter' (from WSD Charter|), or ‘WG' (from WG
`discussion).
`
`2 Definitions
`
`The definitions in this section are drawn primarily from |WSDL 1.1| and are intended
`to be used for purposes of discussion. They are not intended to constrain the results
`of the WG.
`
`2.1 Non—normative definitions
`
`Web Service
`
`[Definition: A Web Service is a software application identified by a URI
`RFC 23%|, whose interfaces and binding are capable of being defined,
`described and discovered by XML artifacts and supports direct interactions with
`other software applications using XML based messages via internet-based
`protocols. ]
`
`lETF
`
`Client
`
`[Definition: A Client is a software that makes use of a Web Service, acting as its
`'user' or 'customer'.]
`
`2.2 Normative definitions
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws-desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`3/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`Message
`
`[Definition: A Message is the basic unit of communication between a Web
`Service and a Client; data to be communicated to or from a Web Service as a
`single logical transmission]
`
`Operation
`
`[Definition: A set of Messages related to a single Web Service action is called
`Operation]
`
`Interface (AKA Port Type)
`
`[Definition: A logical grouping of operations. An Interface represents an
`abstract Web Service type, independent of transmission protocol and data
`format]
`
`InterfaceBinding
`
`[Definition: An association between an Interface, a concrete protocol and/or a
`data format. An InterfaceBinding specifies the protocol and/or data format to
`be used in transmitting Messages defined by the associated Interface]
`
`EndPoint (AKA Port)
`
`[Definition: An association between a fully-specified InterfaceBinding and a
`network address, specified by a URI |IETF RFC 23%|, that may be used to
`communicate with an instance of a Web Service. An EndPoint indicates a
`
`specific location for accessing a Web Service using a specific protocol and data
`format]
`
`Service
`
`[Definition: A collection of End Points is called Service]
`
`3 Relationship to WG Charter
`
`The Web Services Description WG Charter |WSD Charterl has two sections
`describing what is in-scope and what is out-of-scope of the problem space defined for
`the WG. The WG considers all the requirements in Section 1 of |WSD Charterl to be
`in-scope per the Charter.
`
`Reviewers and readers should be familiar with the Web Services Description WG
`Charter |WSD Charterl because it provides the critical context for the requirements
`and any discussion of them.
`
`4 Requirements
`
`4.1 General
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws—desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`4/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`R001
`
`R004
`
`R099
`
`R100
`
`R098
`
`R005
`
`R007
`
`R003
`
`R105
`
`R010
`
`The description language MUST allow any programming model, transport, or
`protocol for communication between peers. (From the Charter. Last revised 23
`Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST describe constructs using the |XML Information
`fl] model (similar to the SOAP 1.2 specifications |SOAP 1.2 Part 1|). (From
`JS. Last revised 21 Feb 2002.)
`
`Processors of the description language MUST support XML Schema
`(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema). See also |XML Schema Part 1|. (From
`WG discussion. Last discussed 21 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow other type systems besides XML
`Schema (http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema) via extensibility. (From WG
`discussion. Last discussed 21 Feb 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) schema and examples MUST be written in XML
`Schema and SHOULD be written in the latest public W3C XML Schema
`Recommendation. (From WG discussion. Last revised 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST correct errors/inconsistencies in WSDL 1.1|.
`(From KL. Last revised 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST provide detailed examples, including on-the-
`wire messages. (From KL. Last revised 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD use available XML technologies. (From JS.
`Last revised 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD support Web Services that operate on
`resource constrained devices. (From YF. Last discussed 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD use consistent terminology across all
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws-desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`5/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`sections of the specification(s). (From KL. Last revised 10 Apr 2002.)
`
`4.2 Simplicity
`
`R013
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST be simple to understand and implement
`correctly. The description language MUST be simple to use. (From the Charter.
`Last discussed 7 Mar 2002.)
`
`R014
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD be compatible with existing Web
`infrastructure. (From the Charter. Last discussed 7 Mar 2002.)
`
`4.3 Interface Description
`
`R021
`
`R022
`
`R054
`
`R041
`
`R116
`
`R083
`
`R026
`
`The description language MUST describe the Messages accepted and
`generated by the Web Service. (From the Charter. Last revised 21 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing application-level error
`Messages (AKA faults) generated by the Web Service. (From the Charter. Last
`revised 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST clearly separate the description of Messages
`from the Message exchange pattern and lnterfaceBinding. (From YF. Last
`revised 11 April 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing sets of Operations that form a
`logical group. (From JS. Last revised 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing abstract policies required or
`offered by Services. (From GD. Last revised 11 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST separate design-time from run-time
`information. (From JS. Last discussed 11 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST provide human-readable comment capabilities.
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws-desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`6/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`(From the Charter. Last discussed 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`R117
`
`R042
`
`The description language SHOULD allow specifying QoS-like policies and
`mechanisms of a Web Service. For instance, an indication of how long it is
`going to take a Web Service to process the request. (From WG discussion. Last
`discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`[Draft] The description language SHOULD allow deriving one Interface from
`another by extension of the logical group of Messages. (From JS.)
`
`4.4 Description of Interactions with a Service
`
`R036
`
`R044
`
`R097
`
`R110
`
`R094
`
`The description language MUST allow describing the functionality associated
`with one-way messages (to and from the service described), request-response,
`solicit-response, and faults. (From the Charter. Last revised 28 Feb 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD allow describing both application data and
`context data of a Service. (From PF. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD allow describing asynchronous message
`exchange patterns. (From IS. Last discussed 11 April 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD allow indicating how long a Web Service is
`going to take to process the request. This is just a hint to the Client, and the
`Web Service would not be obligated to respect what it advertised. (From WV.
`Special case of R117.)
`
`The description language MAY allow describing events and output-oriented
`Operations. The description language MAY be very specific about events,
`defining a special type of a Message or even a separate definition entity. (From
`IS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`4.5 Messages and Types
`
`R046
`
`The description language MUST allow describing Messages independent of
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws-desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`7/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`specific wire format. (From JS. Last discussed 11 April, 2002.)
`
`R085
`
`The description language SHOULD allow describing Messages that include
`references (URls) to strongly-typed referents, both values and Services. (From
`PP. Last discussed 11 April, 2002.)
`
`4.6 Service Types
`
`R058
`
`R118
`
`The description language SHOULD allow deriving one Service type from
`another by extension of the logical group of lnterfaceBindings. (From JS. Last
`discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language SHOULD group Interfaces into a Service type. (From
`JS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`4.7 lnterfaceBindings
`
`R081
`
`R114
`
`R060
`
`R068
`
`R052
`
`The description language MUST describe EndPoint location using URls. (From
`JS.)
`
`The description language MUST allow unambiguously mapping any on-the-wire
`Message to an Operation. (From WG discussion. Last revised 4 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow specifying an association between an
`Interface and one or more concrete protocols and/or data formats. (From the
`Charter. Last revised 12 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow binding of transport characteristics
`independently of data marshalling characteristics. (From PF. Last discussed 12
`April 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing lnterfaceBindings to other
`protocols besides those described in the specification. (From JS. Last revised
`11 April 2002.)
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws-desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`8/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`R111
`
`R066
`
`R028
`
`R113
`
`R065
`
`R062
`
`R031
`
`The WG MUST provide a normative description of the InterfaceBinding for
`HTTP/1.1 ||ETF RFC 2616 GET and POST. (From the Charter. Last revised 28
`Mar 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow binding Interfaces to transports other
`than HTTP/1.1 ||ETF RFC 2616 . (From JS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing the structure of incoming and
`outgoing SOAP 1.2 messages SOAP 1.2 Part 1|, including the contents,
`encoding, target, and optionality of SOAP 1.2 Header and Body blocks, SOAP
`RPC blocks, and SOAP Faults. (From JJM. Last revised 12 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow describing which SOAP features are
`offered by or required by an Operation or a Service. (From GD. Last revised 4
`Apr 2002.)
`
`The WG MUST provide a normative description of the InterfaceBinding for
`SOAP 1.2 over HTTP/1.1. (From JS. Last revised 28 Mar 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST ensure that the SOAP 1.2 InterfaceBinding is
`capable of describing transports other than HTTP. (From the Charter. Last
`revised 28 Mar 2002.)
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD support SOAP 1.2 intermediaries. (From
`JJM. Last discussed 11 April 2002.)
`
`4.8 Reusability
`
`R071
`
`R072
`
`The description language MUST allow partitioning a description across multiple
`files. (From JS.)
`
`The description language MUST allow using a description fragment in more
`than one description. (From JS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws-desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`9/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`4.9 Extensibility
`
`R012
`
`The description language MUST support the kind of extensibility actually seen
`on the Web: disparity of document formats and protocols used to communicate,
`mixing of XML vocabularies using XML namespaces, development of solutions
`in a distributed environment without a central authority, etc. In particular, the
`description language MUST support distributed extensibility. (From the Charter.
`Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST have adequate points of extension in its
`constructions. (From WG discussion. Last discussed 12 Apr 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow indicating whether a given extension is
`required or optional. (From JS. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`R067
`
`R074
`
`R121
`
`[Draft] The description language SHOULD be able to be easily integrated into
`other markup languages. This may involve the following types of considerations:
`media types ||ETF RFC 2046|2 which should be used for a compound type,
`schema wildcarding in the host markup language, containment semantics: how
`the interpretation of WSDL is affected by different containing elements,
`fragment identifiers: how references that cross namespace boundaries work.
`(From MB.)
`
`4.10 Versioning
`
`R075
`
`R119
`
`The description language MUST allow identifying versions of Services. (From
`PF. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`The description language MUST allow identifying versions of descriptions.
`(From PF. Last discussed 12 April 2002.)
`
`4.11 Security
`
`R115
`
`The WG specification(s) SHOULD define the equivalence of Service
`descriptions. (From SW. Last discussed 11 April 2002.)
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws-desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`10/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`4.12 Mapping to the Semantic Web
`
`R070
`
`R120
`
`The WG specification(s) MUST allow providing a mapping from the description
`language to |RDF|. (From the Charter. Last revised 11 April, 2002.)
`
`[Draft] The description language SHOULD ensure that all conceptual elements
`in the description of Messages are addressable by a URI reference RFC2396|.
`(From the Semantic Web. Added 11 April, 2002. Awaiting clarification from
`RDF.)
`
`5 Requirements from other W3C WGs
`
`These are requirements submitted by other W3C Working Groups and Activities.
`
`5.1 XML Protocol
`
`5.2 XForms
`
`5.3 RDF
`
`5.4 P3P
`
`A References
`
`RDF
`
`Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification, Ora
`Lassila, R. Swick, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 22 February 1999.
`This version of the Resource Description Framework Model and Syntax
`Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TRI1999/REC-rdf—syntax-19990222. The
`latest version of Resource Description Framework Model and Syntax is
`available at http://www.w3.org/TRIREC-rdf—syntax.
`lETF RFC 2046
`
`Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types, N.
`Freed, N. Borenstein Author. Internet Engineering Task Force, November 1996.
`Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfclrf02046.txt.
`lETF RFC 2119
`
`Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, 8. Bradner, Author.
`Internet Engineering Task Force, June 1999. Available at
`http://www.ietf.orglrfclrfc2119.txt.
`lETF RFC 2396
`
`Uniform Resource Identifiers (UR/l: Generic Syntax, T. Berners-Lee, R.
`Fielding, L. Masinter, Authors. Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998.
`Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfclrf02396.txt.
`lETF RFC 2616
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws-desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`1 1/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1. 1, R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J. Mogul, H.
`Frystyk, L. Masinter, P. Leach, T. Berners-Lee, Authors. Internet Engineering
`Task Force, June 1999. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt.
`SOAP 1.2 Part 1
`
`SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework, M. Gudgin, M. Hadley, J-J.
`Moreau, and H. F. Nielsen, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 17 December
`2001. This version of the SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1 Specification is
`http://www.w3.org/TR/2001NVD-soap12-part1-20011217. The latest version of
`SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12—part1.
`WSD Charter
`
`Web Services Descrigtion Working Groug Charter, J. Marsh, P. Le Hégaret.
`World Wide Web Consortium, 26 January 2002. Available at
`http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-desc-charter.
`WSDL 1.1
`
`Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, E. Christensen, F. Curbera,
`G. Meredith, and S. Weerawarana, Authors. World Wide Web Consortium, 15
`March 2002. This version of the Web Services Description Language
`Specification is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315. The latest
`version of Web Services Description Language is available at
`http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.
`XML Information Set
`
`XML Information Set, J. Cowan and R. Tobin, Editors. World V\fide Web
`Consortium, 24 October 2001. This version of the XML Information Set
`Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-infoset-20011024.
`The latest version of XML Information Set is available at
`
`http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset.
`XML Schema Part 1
`
`XML Schema Pan‘ 1: Structures, H. Thompson, D. Beech, M. Maloney, and N.
`Mendelsohn, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 2 May 2001. This version of
`the XML Part 1 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2001lREC-
`xmlschema-1-20010502. The latest version of XML Schema Part 1 is available
`
`at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1.
`
`B Acknowledgements (Non-Normative)
`
`C Change Log (Non-Normative)
`
`ma_
`Per 18 Apr teleconference, reworded R001, added R121, and made a
`grammar pass over all accepted requirements. Hid rejected
`requirements for clarity (but retained in the XML source).
`
`Apr
`2002
`
`JS
`
`
`
`JM
`
`Reflected April FTF decisions.
`
`JS
`
`Per 4 Apr teleconference, accepted 2 requirements, rejected 4, and
`revised the wording of 2. Added new requirement R114.
`
`17
`
`Apr
`2002
`
`5 A
`
`pr
`2002
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws—desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`12/13
`
`

`

`5/26/2015
`
`Web Service Description Requirements
`
`JS
`
`3
`Apr
`2002
`
`Per 28 Mar teleconference, accepted 4 requirements and rejected 10.
`Added new requirement R113. Marked proposed simplification of
`requirements in Sections 4.5 and 4.9.
`
`26
`Mar
`2002
`
`JS
`
`19
`
`Mar
`2002
`
`JS
`
`Per 21 Mar teleconference, updated definitions and wording of
`requirements to use the new definitions. Marked proposed
`simplification of requirements in Sections 4.6 and 4.7; split R111 out of
`R061. Added new requirement R112. Added meta data for expected
`time frame of requirement.
`
`Added definitions proposed by dbooth.
`
`M2ar :-Per7Marteleconference,accepted3requirementsandrejected7.
`
`Per 28 Feb teleconference, accepted 5 requirements, rejected 6, and
`added R109. Marked proposed simplification of requirements in
`Section 4. 2. Added R110 for newly submitted requirement.
`
`2002J
`
`2002
`
`Mar
`2002J
`
`Feb JS
`2002
`
`Per 21 Feb teleconference, added NR prefix for non requirements,
`accepted 5 requirements and rejected 4. Added R102 through R108
`for newly submitted requirements.
`
`20'Added R081 through R097. Assigned initial priorities alallETF RFC
`
`1_1219.
`
`Feb JM
`2002
`
`Created
`
`http://www .w3.org/T R/2002/W D-ws—desc- reqs-20020429/
`
`13/13
`
`