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

Abstract model ednote?

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:50:17 +0200
Message-ID: <3D182EC9.FB0449DC@crf.canon.fr>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
CC: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Since the text is in there already, I think we should keep it for this
round; but maybe add an ednote indicating that more changes are on the way.
What about the following?

<ednote>
WSDL 1.1 did not provide its own abstract model. The WSD WG has decided to
provide an asbtract model for WSDL 1.2; however, the WG has not reached
consensus on what that abstract model should look like. This section is an
attempt at providing such a model, but as said, it does not represent
consensus, and is likely to be revised significantly in the a future
revision of this specification.
</ednote>

Jean-Jacques.

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> 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.
>
> > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> >
> > 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??
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 04:51:01 GMT

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