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 01:39:40 +0600
Message-ID: <02a901c21bb6$e7ca7c40$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>

Obviously I'm not seeing something .. I did look at the schema
spec and what I wrote is similar in spirit (or so I thought).
I'd like to understand why that's not acceptable as a start for
a first working draft .. we're always free to replace anything
in a draft with something better (or worse!).

Again, if you can provide a sample for what your writeup
would be for one of the definition components that would
really help for me to understand what you have in mind
and how what's there now relates (or does not, as the case
may be).

I agree I can go back to the "old" version of part1 and update
it. I personally felt that the "new" version was much clearer
and much more precise. I would really rather go with that than
go back to the old version which was quite sloppy at best.

How do others feel??

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 12:49 AM
Subject: RE: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec


>
> 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 15:40:44 GMT

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