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

RE: Updated portTypeExtension proposal

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:55:20 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB556D807.E5061810-ON85256C52.005E1895-85256C52.006D50B7@rchland.ibm.com>
<monitor mode="decloak">

I'm not sure that postponing any naming considerations is necessarily such 
a good idea.
I can certainly see postponing any renaming discussion of *existing* WSDL 
elements/attributes,
but this, as I understand it, is still at the proposal stage.

IMO, element and attribute names should be as expressive and intuitive as 
possible, so as to avoid
any potential for misunderstanding. Introducing an attribute with a 
non-intuitive name like
'bases' at this stage does not (IMO) help in conveying the attribute's 
purpose and intent. 

Why not choose a well understood and widely used term such as has been 
suggested
by Sanjiva?  (e.g. portType/@extends) I saw no pushback to his proposal 
other than the 
"we'll address naming issues later" comments. 

</monitor>

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

Jonathan Marsh wrote on 10/14/2002 10:21:34 AM:

> 
> Sanjiva, just to expand on what Gudge said:
> 
> > Yeah, we talked on the call about working on the names later in the
> life
> > of the spec so that we can come up with a consistent set when things
> are
> > more stable.
> 
> I suggested (and we seemed to have consensus on) that we postpone naming
> issues until the spec solidifies a bit more, and then have a thorough
> review of all the names at once.  This should help us avoid spending a
> lot of time arguing about names of constructs that might change or
> disappear later, and help us to craft a consistent naming strategy.
> 
> So, for now, the names are up to the editors.  Hope you find this an
> efficient way to go forward.
> 
Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 15:56:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT