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

RE: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:57:24 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C06A07ECC@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I think some parts of your abstract components are not abstract enough.
For instance, is "documentation" really an property of an abstract
component?  Or a helpful artifact of serialization of that component?
What about extension properties?

It was not the intention that we would do any significant work on
abstract components before the first publication.  I'm OK with what
you've written as a an indication of where we plan to go, but I hope
it's not so controversial that it delays our publication schedule.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:40 PM
> To: Martin Gudgin; Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: Re: updated editor's copy of WSDL 1.2 spec
> 
> 
> 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 17:57:56 GMT

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