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

RE: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 06:36:07 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145CCF7@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Liu Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Regarding NIH, I don't see how this could ever be the case. 

'H' is the WSDesc WG, everything we 'I', is produced 'H'

Gudge

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: 05 July 2002 13:50
To: Martin Gudgin; Tom Jordahl; Jean-Jacques Moreau; Liu Kevin
Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: Re: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors


"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> 
> Please look at the context of my comment. Jean-Jacques and Tom's 
> comments were specifically around the relationship between target 
> namespace and WSDL components. All I was saying is that that mapping 
> will be clean, obvious, non-ambiguous. I was not making any claims 
> about the spec as a whole.

I certainly hope the whole spec is an improvement for both WSDL 1.1 
and from the current entire spec.

> That said, I would hope that the spec will at least be clearer than it

> is currently. If we don't AIM to produce a spec that is clear and 
> consistent then you are corrent, we never will.

;-) Motherhood-and-apple-pie, but agreed.

> As an aside, you seem unconvinced that an abstract model will be 
> useful,

That was when it wasn't clear what this "abstract" model was going 
to be. I don't think you were involved in the early calls when it wasn't
at all clear (at least to me) what shape it would take. Now that I have
written one, I wouldn't at all call it an "abtract model" of WSDL - its
just a syntax independent way to describe the concepts in WSDL. That's
why I like the "Conceptual Framework" title much better (I lifted that
from SOAP 1.2 I believe).

> yet for some reason you have taken it upon yourself to attempt to 
> produce one, even though that is work that I offered to do, why is 
> this?
> 
> I thought I agreed to produce an abstract model for presentation to 
> the WG by July 12th, everyone seemed happy with that schedule, what 
> has changed in the mean time?

I produced one because it didn't make sense for me to just take the 
syntax and infosetize it without attempting to provide some meaning. I
feel, and I believe I have heard so from several others too, that the
current editor's draft is a much improved spec from what was known as
WSDL 1.1. 

Now that a conceptual framework exists, I don't think we should 
throw it away just because of NIH. If you have ways to improve it,
please go for it, but please don't keep saying "there'll be a 
better one coming so why did you do it?".

Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 09:36:39 GMT

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