Making your e-business work  

Home

Standards
    Conformance
    Reference Model
    Public Documents
    XPDL_2.0
    Wf-XML 2.0



About WfMC

Events

Information and
Publications


Free downloads

Membership Information

Press Room

Excellence Awards

Marvin L Manheim Award

Workflow Handbook
   2001
   2002
   2003

   2004
   2005
   2006 NEW!


Associated sites:
AIIM
WARIA

e-workflow.org

Got a question?
Join our Discussion Forums
 Discussion Forum for Workgroups (WfMC-specific)

Workflow and BPM Research

BPM Community Forum
 


Rainer Weber CT0043 This has been mentioned by Keith Swenson as well. E.g. in Example 7 it appears to me that Key

and ResourceID should be the same.

It seems to me that in all cases, either Key and ResourceID should coincide, or one is input and

the other is output, e.g. in ProcessDefinition.CreateProcessInstance: ResourceID is the ID of the

process definition, Key is the ID of the process instance.

Proposal: Improve the naming, e.g. ResourceID and ResultResourceID (for key) or

CSC/JCALS RW0011 The resource ID may not always be the URL . We may add variables to the URL to identify the

resource.

Issue 18
Method Name

Resolution: <Method> should not be in the “application level data” set of tags, but instead in the “Session Level

Data” set.

Keith Swenson CT0011 This proposed spec takes a radical departure from the original SWAP specs by putting the method

name in a tag inside the XML. The powerpoint slides imply that this was an IETF suggestion. My

impression was completely the opposite. Many members of the IETF specifically requested that

the method be used in the “method name” part of a HTTP header. This parameter specifies the

operation that you want to perform on the resource – which is by the way exactly what we are

doing. The operation is given the body of the message, the XML, to digest and process. Different

operations can then be encoded in different formats – we don’t care about this but it is important

to be able to be implemented on a web server that is also hosting other standards than ours. I got a

lot of questions from SWAP initiative members who did not quite know how to do this. When

you use a web browser, you are not aware of the method name at all (which is either GET, PUT, or

POST, by the way). Lack of understanding of HTTP led people to believe hat requests should be

made with the GET operation. The advantage here is that you can put static web pages on a web

server, and simulate the operation of a SWAP server. But overloading GET in this way is a

disadvantage in those cases where you need to distinguish swap operations. If we use GET to

mean give meKeith Swenson SWAP Update Page 4 of 6 SWAP Update.doc June 12, 1999 Page 4

of 6 the instance data of the resource (quite possibly a good fit) then other methods would need to

be used to get the other specific information.

Rainer Weber CT0020 Regarding Keith Swenson's response to that document by June 12, 1999, I agree with most of his

comments. However, I do NOT agree with his comments 11 and 12: I think that the XML data

should be self-contained, i.e. the resource ID and the method name should be included in the XML

data. Thus the XML descriptions can be used with different transport mechanisms, also with those

where the resource ID and method name cannot be specificied at another place (such as

http-method or within the URL). For the http mechanisms this information could be redundant

then, but I think it does not disturb either. (Yet I agree with Keith's remark in 11 that resource ID

and key should be the same.)

Edna Murby CT0088 2.2.6--Page 10--With respect to Example 6, line 6 ‘<method-name>’: This will not work in DTD

(Can’t use the same method name with different signatures in two interfaces.) Flat set of

commands.--Proposed Modification: Merge interface name and method name,

<InterfaceNameMethodName>. List of parameters. Rational: Discussion.

Edna Murby CT0097 A--Page 45--Comment on Appendix A: Example of overloaded methods -> name conflict in DTD)

See list item 19. Proposed Modification:Propose that method signatures are strongly typed.

Rational: Discussion.

CSC/JCALS RW0012 Powerpoint slides did not intend to imply that it was IETF's suggestion to have method name in a

tag inside XML.

Friday, June 09, 2000 Page 7 of 18
First Previous Next Last
Standards
Published Docs
Standards
Reference Model
Conformance
XPDL support

Wf-XML 2.0
 

Information Services
Info Services
Awards
Books
Workflow Handbook

Membership
How to join
Application
Country Chapters
List of members
Officers
Fellows


NEW!

Workflow Handbook 2006
NOW SHIPPING!



CDROM Companion to the Workflow Handbook 2005

 

horizontal rule

home | membership | standards | info | events | members only

All brand names and product names mentioned in this website are trademarks or service marks of their respective companies. Any omission or misuse should not be regarded as intent to infringe on the property of others. The WfMC recognizes and respects all marks used by companies, manufacturers and developers as a means to distinguish their products. The “WfMC” logo and “Workflow Management Coalition” are service marks of the Workflow Management Coalition. http://www.wfmc.org.

horizontal rule