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

RE: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:20:31 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145D0B4@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I would strip out the current 'abstract' section, I don't think it's
what we want/need.

Gudge

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: 24 June 2002 15:33
To: Martin Gudgin; Jean-Jacques Moreau
Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: Re: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec


Hi Gudge,

Since we need to commit to a publishable version this week, should we do
these updates post WD#1?

Jonathan: what do you think?

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
<sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec


>
> Take a look at the XML Schema spec[1]. I intend that the abstract 
> model for WSDL will be along similar lines. I will be working on it 
> this week, so expect that section of the spec to change drastically
>
> Gudge
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 24 June 2002 09:26
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: Re: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec
>
>
>
> Hi Sanjiva,
>
> My initial reaction is to say no, the abstract model should not be 
> coupled to the infoset. But then I am wondering what does this really 
> means. Is the difference only in terms of terminology ("property" vs.
> EII?) or is it more profound? Wouldn't both approaches essentially 
> model a (DOM) tree? Isn't the infoset already a suitable model?
>
> The cut we have done for SOAP 1.2 is to describe the 
> semantics/processing [1] separate from the syntax [2]. Would a similar

> model work for WSDL?
>
> Taking a specific example from your latest draft -section 2.2 [3]-, 
> would it work to keep to keep only paragraph 1 and move the rest to 
> section [3], whilst adding a longer description of what a message 
> represents?
>
> I realize I am raising more issues than providing answers... What do 
> you think?
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#msgexchngmdl
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#soapenv
> [3] 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/part1/part1.html#mess
> ag
> e-desc-component
>
>
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> > <snip/> 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.
> >
> > <snip/>
> > >    * 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.
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 14:21:04 GMT

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