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
  From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
  To: "Arthur Ryman" <arthur-ryman@rogers.com>, "W3C WS-Description"
  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.



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:39 UTC