RE: A modest proposal on WSDL semantics

Jonathan,

Good question.  I think it does overlap with the TAG issue.  However, the
TAG's guidance will be for namespace name documents above and beyond WSDL.
Therefore, WSD WG ought to do what it thinks is best.  The TAG certainly
hasn't gotten consensus on what the document format should be.  Indeed, the
two main authors of RDDL are having some difficulty getting closure on how
to "RDF-ize" RDDL.  

My personal opinion is that a namespace name URI should be dereferencable
and the media-type of the representation should be xhtml and intended for
human consumption.  Included in that is wsdl.  I think WSD ought to leave
out the machine processable semantics for now.  Realistically, why re-invent
the wheel on how to put the machine readable into xhtml?  Let the TAG (or
somebody else) figure that mess out.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:58 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A modest proposal on WSDL semantics
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be identical to the tag issue 'What should a "namespace
> document" look like?' [1].  Is it?  If so, do we need to discuss this
> further in our group?  If even the TAG has not been able to reach
> consensus yet, do we have a chance?  If we do, will we get out of sync
> with the TAG?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: A modest proposal on WSDL semantics
> > 
> > 
> > I have drafted a brief, modest proposal for addressing semantics in
> WSDL
> > 1.2:
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wsdl-semantics-dbooth/semantics_clean.htm
> > I'm interested to hear whether people find this proposal reasonable.
> > 
> > --
> > David Booth
> > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 
>