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

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

From: Sadiq, Waqar <waqar.sadiq@eds.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:36:15 -0600
Message-ID: <9C79F2D39765D411B18900508BE326A20B08C4E2@USPLM208>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

+1 to all that was said.  Furthermore, we will be incorporating all the
interoperability issues being raised and treat them as requirements.  It
just does not seem right to attempt to patch WSDL 1.1 because it is a
challenging task by itself.

 
_______________________________________________
Waqar Sadiq
 
EDS EIT EASI - Enterprise Consultant
MS: H3-4C-22
5400 Legacy Drive
Plano, Texas 75024
 
phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837)
e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com
fax: +01-972-605-4071
_______________________________________________
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:11 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Our future course (Was: Re: WS-I)

 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 
1.1.

 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)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



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 16:36:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT