RE: proposal for equivalence of top level items

Sanjiva, would it be safe to say that you are proposing we use
name-based equivalence for top-level WSDL components? (As opposed to
some sort of structural equivalence?)

--Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:28 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: Re: proposal for equivalence of top level items
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 11:05, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >
> > I have a pending action item to propose equivalence rules for
> > top level items. Here it is, finally:
> >
> > schema stuff:
> >     out of scope
> >
> > <message>
> >     messages m1 and m2 are equivalent iff their QNames are the same
> >     (i.e., equal - using rules which someone else has defined for
> >     QName equivalence .. if these don't exist then we can define
them)
> >
> > <portType>
> >     pt1 and pt2 equivalent iff their QNames are the same
> >
> > <binding>
> >     iff QNames are equivalent
> >
> > <service>
> >     iff QNames are equivalent
> >
> > So basically its name equivalence for all ..
> 
> Not sure what you mean regarding equivalence. Is it an equivalence
> within a WSDL document, between two or more WSDL documents? What is
the
> level of equivalence? syntactic? semantic? If I use a message as an
> input and reuse it for an output, are they the same?
> 
> Philippe
> 
>