W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2002

RE: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) -comments on overall struct ure

From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 01:30:24 +0200
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D01A5F69F@uspalx20a.pal.sap-ag.de>
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh (E-mail)" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>

Hi Sanjiva and all the editors,

Overall I like the new approach. It obviously involves a lot of work
rewriting a more precise spec and clarifying many issues. Thanks for the
great work.

Below are my observations on the structure of the spec. I will send my
comments on a few issues and some typos/errors in this draft in separate
messages.

Regards,
Kevin

OVERALL STRUCTURE
>>>Do we still need section 1.2  "WSDL document structure"? at best should
we put it in a more appropriate place?  
[In WSDL1.1, this section makes sense since it introduces the informal
grammar used by the rest of the doc. But in 1.2, the rest of the spec uses
info set.  Does it still make sense to have this section? 

If the WG decide that the section still has its value such as showing the
overall WSDL document structure, it seems to me should go with section 3
"WSDL documents". Putting it before section 2 "conceptual framework" is a
little confusing - it introduces the wsdl elements before even introduce the
concepts   ]

>>>Should we have an appendix for WSDL schema?
[Maybe we still don't have a updated version of the wsdl schema, but the
draft doesn't even have any place holder for the schema. 

Is the omission intended( and I missed related discussion)? IMHO, the WSDL
schema should be part of part 1as an appendix, while the other schemas
(http, mime, etc) should go with part 2]

>>> terminology consistency
[I know that section 2 is subject to changes as the ednote indicates. Just
make it aware that section 2.3 seems inconsistent with other sections. It
doesn't differentiate "child elements" and "attributes". It calls both
"property". For example,  It uses "name" property, input message property,
output message property etc. In other sections, attributes are called
"property" and child elements are called "descriptions" - see section 2.6
for examples. Personally I think section 2.6 is cleaner.]

>>>Should we just remove section 1.3?
[I guess the content of this section has been intentionally removed (- maybe
to the primer?). Any reason to keep just the title in the spec?]

>>>Convention for attribute names that references other components?
[It seems that the name "convention" for such attributes are arbitrary in
the current spec. For example, we use binding@type to refer portType@name,
input@message to refer message@name, etc.  

This is not really an issue, but will it be more "user-friendly" to follow
some convention?  say "reusing" the corresponding element name as the
attribute name - we will then have input@message, binding@portType,
service@serviceType, etc. In WSDL1.1, Seems most such attributes follow this
convention (I see  one exception: binding@type). For new attributes
introduced by 1.2, I would suggest we do not make the situation worse]


-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:48 PM
To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30)



I have updated the draft to address the bug that Steve Tuecke
pointed out and also to add the related issue (see my reply to
Steve's mail).

Note that Phillippe has renamed the doc in preparation for
publication. The document is now avaialable at:
    
    http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12 

(Thanks Phillippe for this link.)

Bye,

Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 19:31:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT