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 11:49:18 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145D0B6@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>

Err, I don't understand. What would you have written if we had NOT
decided to go with an abstract model? Given that the abstract model is
not due until July 12, I would expect that the first draft will just be
whatever we would have published if we'd not decided on an abstract
model...

For the kind of thing I'm thinking of look at the XML Schema spec[1]

Gudge

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: 24 June 2002 19:39
To: Martin Gudgin; Jean-Jacques Moreau
Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: Re: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec


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#msgexchngm
> > dl
> > [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 14:49:52 GMT

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