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

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

From: Roberto Chinnici <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:48:21 -0800
Message-ID: <3C928845.86274FB4@sun.com>
To: "Sadiq, Waqar" <waqar.sadiq@eds.com>
CC: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
+1

We'll make the most effective use of our time if we focus on
producing a high-quality WSDL.next specification.

The current process, based on requirements and use cases, seems
extremely well suited to the task and guarantees that we won't get
bogged down working out fine-grained details (or worse, endlessly
debating the interpretation of individual passages from the WSDL 1.1
spec) any time soon.

Once we come to an agreement on the bigger picture, we'll be able
to integrate the lessons coming from WS-I to make our specification
even more solid and complete.

Roberto

--
Roberto Chinnici
Java and XML Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
roberto.chinnici@sun.com
408-276-7043 (office)


"Sadiq, Waqar" wrote:

> +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 Friday, 15 March 2002 18:47:28 GMT

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