W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > March 2005

Re: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology)

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:16:18 -0500
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-qa@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1111785378.22443.34.camel@nc6000.w3.org>

Some afterthoughts:

Section 8.1 is the one that defines (or will define, once the editorial
changes are complete) a "conforming WSDL 2.0 document".  (We currently
use the term "WSDL document" in a number of places in the spec, so these
also need to be changed to "conforming WSDL 2.0 document".  Or perhaps
we should just make the term be "WSDL 2.0 document", to be slightly

It occurs to me that it would also make sense to move Part 1 section 8.1
to the beginning of the spec, so that the reader can begin with the
overall understanding of what constitutes a conformant WSDL 2.0 document
(which is what section 8.1 defines), and then drill down as the spec is

I suggest moving section 8.1 immediately after section 1.1, so that
section 1 would proceed as follows:
	1.1 says what WSDL is all about (no change);
	1.2 (formerly 8.1) says what consitutes a conformant WSDL 2.0 document;
	1.3 (formerly 1.2) says what it means (no change);
	1.4 (formerly 1.3) defines notational conventions (no change).

On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 16:18, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 15:23 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> > * Dan Connolly wrote:
> > >p.p.s. I thought I saw a "define your terms" bit in SpecGL,
> > >but I don't see it.
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#define-terms-section
> Ah... thanks.
> And I see that my comment is redundant w.r.t. Dom's earlier comments
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Aug/0000.html
> to which the WSD WG replied...
> "We agreed to add a definition of WSDL Document as a wsdl:definitions
> element and its descendents."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0030.html
> That seems pretty good. I look forward to a new draft so I can check
> it in context.

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Friday, 25 March 2005 21:16:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:56 UTC