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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:38:55 +0600
Message-ID: <026e01c21bae$74eca340$02aa7cca@lankabook2>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hmm. I can't write the rest without anything up there.

Can you give a sample of what you think what we want/need? Clearly
we have different ideas ...

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@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>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:20 AM
Subject: RE: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec


>
> 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 14:40:10 GMT

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