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

Re: proposal for equivalence of top level items

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:29:47 -0500
Message-ID: <005e01c2899f$916e3740$2e060e09@lankabook2>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Yep, exactly.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:41 PM
Subject: 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
> > 
> >
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 11:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT