W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org > May 2003

Raw IRC log from 21 May 2003 MEP TF telcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:20:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1113DDB24D4A2841951BFDF86665EE1906475EB4@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org>

Session Start: Wed May 21 09:06:54 2003
Session Ident: #ws-desc
*** Now talking in #ws-desc
*** dbooth has joined #ws-desc
*** alewis sets mode: +o Marsh
*** alewis sets mode: -o alewis
* alewis likes that better ...
*** umit has joined #ws-desc
*** Marsh is now known as Scribe
<Scribe> David: Previously uncovered differences in assumptions.
<Scribe> ... For example, how messages are viewed.
<Scribe> ... Go through assumptions, see if we all agree.
<Scribe> 1) is agreeable to all
<Scribe> 2) ?
<Scribe> 4) WSD has a single "meaning"
<Scribe> Jonathan: what's the meaning of "meaning" - different users
will view it through different lenses.
<Scribe> Umit: Tells client how to connect to a service.  Contract for
the client as presented by the service.
<Scribe> Umit: How it came into existence has nothing to do with it.
<Scribe> David: Anyone who reads the contract should infer the same
<Scribe> 6) 
<Scribe> Jonathan: "complete"?
<Scribe> David: includes endpoint uris, bindings, interfaces.
<Scribe> Amy: "interface" is a generic term here - that might confuse
<Scribe> Umit: "A complete WSD" -> "A full WSDL document including
<Scribe> "A full definition of the service, which can be defined by
multiple WSDL documents and Schemas".
<Scribe> Umit: Transitive closure of documents that define a service.
<Scribe> Amy: WSDL can contain multiple services.
<Scribe> Amy: Don't have a concept of a "service" (other than the one
being developed by the WG)
<Scribe> Amy: Need a term for the chain of WSDL constructs defining a
particular service?
<Scribe> David: My definition is a service that contains endpoints.
<Scribe> Jonathan: Should we look at it starting with the particular Web
service and all the description components associated with it?
<Scribe> David: Trying to look at it from the point of view of the
<Scribe> Amy: Multiple clients may make use of the same contract.
*** dbooth has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<Scribe>  Amy: Don't need "complete WSD" concept to get this across.
*** dbooth has joined #ws-desc
<Scribe> Umit: Need an endpoint to interact.
<Scribe> Amy: You can do interesting things with parts of WSDL (e.g.
abstract) without actually interacting.
<Scribe> David: Suppose you have a WSDL that includes interfaces,
bindings, endpoints - what is it useful for?
<Scribe> Amy: Depends who's looking at it.
<Scribe> ... Registry use is different than client.
<Scribe> ... Item 2 and item 4 amount to the same thing?
<Scribe> Umit: 1) seems to cover multiple clients.
<Scribe> Jonathan: ... "it's client or clients"
<Scribe> Jonathan: 2) "primary" purpose (not all purposes are mechanics
of interaction)
<Scribe> Amy: Need to distill these assumptions down.
<Scribe> Amy: 1) = from point of view of service, WSD is intended for
use by service _and_ it's client(s).
<Scribe> ... 2) WSD represents a contract.
<Scribe> ... 4) Is a complete (only?) contract.
<Scribe> David: no
<Scribe> Umit: Two different people can infer the same meaning from the
<Scribe> Amy: Exclusionary statements will never be complete (phase of
moon, etc.)
<Scribe> David: Called these out because they were questioned
<Scribe> Jonathan: Seems to be a vague assumption that a WSD should be
adequate to capture the mechanics of interacting with the service.
<Scribe> David: No, I'm saying that given a WSDL document, what is the
intended purpose.
<Scribe> Jonathan: Description can be used for many purposes.
<Scribe> 1) A WSD is intended for use by a WS and its client or clients.
<Scribe> 2) A primary purpose of the WSD is to ensure that the
interacting parties agree on the syntax, datatypes and protocols they
will use to interact.
<Scribe> Amy: (drop 2a)
<Scribe> 2) A primary purpose of the WSD is to establish a contract on
the syntax, datatypes, and protocols which the interacting parties will
use to interact.
* alewis gives Scribe a trout
* Scribe is not sure that is a good thing
<Scribe> David: OK, but is it exclusive of those things?
* alewis suggests that it's a good thing if it's fresh (or even alive),
and that maybe the goodness is inversely correlated with freshness ....
<Scribe> Jonathan: not exclusive.
<Scribe> Umit: This should be a sufficient condition.
*** umit has quit IRC (Quit: umit)
*** alewis has left #ws-desc (Bye!)
*** Disconnected
Session Close: Wed May 21 10:19:23 2003
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 13:43:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:45:44 UTC