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

Re: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:17:17 +0600
Message-ID: <00ee01c21958$46cfdfc0$02aa7cca@lankabook2>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi Jean-Jacuqes,

> On the whole, I like the new approach. I am wondering, though, whether
> section 2 and 3, as currently written (or as being rewritten as far as
> section 3 is concerned), are not largely going to duplicates of each
> other. For example, 2.2 "Message Description Component" specifies the
> properties for the message EII; but I expect that section 3.4 "Messages"
> will do the same? Did you have something else in mind?

I also had that same concern. In fact, I was wondering where the
semantics go .. in the abstract description or at the point of 
describing the infoset for each description component?

I wonder whether we should drop the "be infoset based" requirement
now that we have are abstract model based. I kind of like the 
infoset description approach (I cut-n-pasted from the soap spec 
to get the template; thanks to whoever wrote that part!), but it
does seem a bit redundant.


> Minor, additional comments below.
> 
> This is a great start anyway! Keep up the good work!
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> -------------
> Other comments, in document order:
> 
>    * Section 2, second paragraph. I think an extra sentence at the
>      beginning of this paragraph to define "group" would help the reader
>      not confuse this with the "component" concept from the previous
>      paragraph.

Wilco.

>    * Personally, I find the abbreviations TDC, MPDCs, PTDCs, etc. too
>      confusing, especially since they are too many of them and they look
>      too similar.

Yeah I worried about those acronyms too. I'll dump them.

>    * 2.1, "OMG IDL". Can we really reference an OMG IDL type from WSDL?
>      Do we want this here at all?

Its possible to use OMG IDL, but I'll use some other example as OMG
IDL may add confusion. One IDL referring to another would confuse
folks I guess ;-).

>    * 2.5, "SOAP 1.1". Maybe add an ednote to indicate that the WG is
>      currently investigating whether it will support SOAP 1.1 in this
>      specification, as a W3C note, or otherwise.

Wilco.

>    * Re. "property". Shouldn't this be EII or AII in a number of places?

I didn't think the abstract model should be coupled to do the infoset.
Do you? EII/AII implies a specific serialization .. one can imagine 
more than one serialization (infosets) of the same abstract model.
(I'm beginning to like this abstract model approach .. thanks to 
Jack for pushing us (me especially) to move that way!)

>    * Re. issues in general, maybe we should be using a modified form of
>      ednote (table with border), so that they clearly stand out from the
>      text (when printed)?

Yep, sounds good. I will work on the stylesheet to move closed issues 
to an appendix and then open issues to such a form.

Thank you very much for your comments!

EVERYONE: It would be best if u can review the direction of the new
writeup .. its basically an all new writeup (with pretty much a 
new table of contents too - again what Jack wanted!) and so it'll 
be better to know if you have any fundamental concerns sooner rather
than later.

Thanks,

Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 21 June 2002 15:18:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT