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

Re: Abstract model ednote?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:10:04 +0600
Message-ID: <043101c21c5a$96ca9b50$02aa7cca@lankabook2>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

This is ok with me .. Gudge?

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@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>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:50 PM
Subject: Abstract model ednote?


>
> 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 11:12:23 GMT

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