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

RE: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology)

From: David Booth <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 14:44:47 -0400
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1116701087.4250.176.camel@nc6000.w3.org>

This resolution satisfies my concern.


On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 20:44 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment
> LC115 [1].  The Working Group referred this to the editors for
> incorporation.
> 
> If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
> satisfies your concern.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC115
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth
> > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 1:16 PM
> > To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> > Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; www-qa@w3.org; Dan Connolly
> > Subject: Re: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology)
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > briefer.)
> > 
> > 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
> > read.
> > 
> > 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
> > 

-- 

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software / Boston
Hewlett-Packard, Inc.
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 18:45:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT