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

RE: Requirement: Define Equivalence of WSDL Definitions

From: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:29:47 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE012FB85.A374F3A9-ON85256C02.006ABCF8@torolab.ibm.com>

Yes, each extension should also define equivalence.

Defining a canonical form is one nice way to define equivalence. If you
have a canonical form, then you can define equivalence by saying that
two things are equivalent if and only if they have the same canonical form.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:59:52 -0700
  Message-ID:
<2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1082D00B0@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.mi>
  From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
  To: "Arthur Ryman" <arthur-ryman@rogers.com>, "W3C WS-Description"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
  Subject: RE: Requirement: Define Equivalence of WSDL Definitions

  +1. See R115 [1].

  Each extension to WSDL would have to define its own equivalence, right?

  An additional, compatible objective would be to define a canonical form.

  --Jeff

  [1]
  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-re
  qs.html


  -- Arthur Ryman
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 15:29:51 GMT

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