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

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

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:39:57 -0500
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CJEIKEMEBAONGDDNLEKFAEHODOAA.anne@manes.net>
+1

Keep in mind that WS-I is trying to establish interoperability guidelines
when using SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1, and UDDI 1.0. It will be a whole new world
when we're dealing with W3C SOAP and W3C WSDL.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:11 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 16:40:04 GMT

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