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

Our future course (Was: Re: WS-I)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:10:46 +0100 (CET)
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203141955080.29209-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Hi all,
 let me try to pick the situation apart:

 WS-I is here to provide best practices for WSDL and some 
profiles limiting WSDL. All for interoperability. All for WSDL 

 We are here to take WSDL 1.1 and come up with a better version 
of the same. From my reading of the charter (I read it again 
right now) it is unclear whether we're to produce a patched spec 
or a new one, inspired by (and possibly similar to) WSDL 1.1.

 If the working group was created half a year earlier, I think 
WS-I would not be created. Our position would then clearly be to 
provide a nice and crisp and polished WSDL 1.1 as WSDL 1.2 (the 
patched version).

 But now since we do have WS-I to take care of the usability of 
WSDL 1.1, I think it is more feasible to start from scratch, with 
(possibly heavy) inspiration taken from WSDL 1.1.

 In my experience patched specs read much worse and also contain 
lots of space for inconsistencies. Patching SOAP 1.1 was what we 
decided to do in XMLP WG and we're still stumbling upon new 
issues where there are different meaning of the text possible 
(and present in the group).

 This stumbling and the need to identify all the issues in the
original spec (as opposed to the issues in the original design)
make the work take very long.

 Now my guess is that if we start from scratch, only borrowing 
from WSDL where appropriate, it won't take much longer (or even 
that long) and we'll end up with a simpler and nicer spec ready 
to be named WSDL 2.0. But the actual version number may be 1.2 to 
ease the perceived impact, this won't really matter then. 8-)

 Now is the time to do it right. 8-)

 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Stumbo, William K wrote:

 > I didn't detect any clear direction on WS-I coming out of today's telephone
 > conference.  It seems we've currently tied any working relationship to the
 > definition of our scope.
 > >From the comments made by those involved with WS-I (Arthur?), it seems to me
 > that we can probably craft some sort of working relationship that benefits
 > both parties.  Whether we need to formalize a relationship, I can't say.
 > I'd like to suggest, as a way of making progress, that the WS-I members put
 > a proposal for a relationship on the table.  We  can debate the merits of
 > working together until we're blue in the face.  Lets focus the discussion
 > around a specific proposal and see where that goes.
 > What information could the WG expect from WS-I?  How should we expect to use
 > it?  What can we provide WS-I that would help their mission?
 > Bill Stumbo   
 > Xerox Research & Technology
 > Solutions & Services Technology Center
 > wstumbo@crt.xerox.com
 >     Phone:	585.422.0616
 >     Fax:	585.265.8424
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 14:10:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:37 UTC