RE: Last call review comments

Thank you for your comment.  We have incorporated the resolutions
detailed below into the latest Working Drafts [1, 2].  We expect to have
another brief Last Call period soon.  We'll assume you are satisfied
with the resolutions below unless we hear from you within two weeks.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-adjuncts-20050510

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:44 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Last call review comments
> 
> 
> Hi all, finally reading (most of) the Last Call drafts of WSDL 2 I
> have
> the following comments that I think may not be purely editorial.
> 
> Every comment starts with the number of the relevant section.
> 
> PART 1:
> 
> 2.1.1 "The components directly defined within a single Definitions
> component are said to belong to the same target namespace."  -- what
> about included components in the same namespace?

Tracked as LC52a [3], the WG agreed to adopt the proposal in [4] to
address this issue, namely to re-state in simple terms that the
Description (LC43) Component is a container for Interface, Binding,
Service, Element Declaration, Type Definition and Extensibility
components. Include and import are at a different level, composition.
This level is different from the component model. Composition is clearly
answered in the mapping section.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC52a
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0063.html

> 2.5.1 how does {message content model} (in particular, #element)
> relate
> to the use of other data models (3.2)? (text should probably be added
> after properties bullet list that {message content model} is not
> present
> in that case)

Tracked as LC52b [5], the WG agreed to clarify that {message content
model} is optional, missing when a different type system is in use. See
also the resolution to LC70 [6].

[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC52b
[6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC70

> PART 3:
> 
> 2: rationale for not defaulting fault binding (at latest in 4th para)?
> Is it just faultCodes not being defaultable? Should be mentioned in
> the
> text.

Tracked as LC52c [7], the WG agreed to clarify that fault codes not
being defaultable is indeed the reason.

[7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC52c

> Best regards,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Ph.D. student researcher
>                    Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
>                    http://www.deri.org/
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 20:13:43 UTC