W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:58:45 -0700
Message-ID: <1113DDB24D4A2841951BFDF86665EE1906B219B2@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

We did not drop @targetResource, although we considered it (and were
close).  There is concern that this and the diagrams we added to our
spec are generating non-converging discussion, and that the diagrams are
not central to the purpose of WSDL in describing the flow of messages
into and out from a Web service.  Likewise targetResource is solely for
purposes of discovery (out of scope according to our charter).  Those
are at least the questions I thought we were debating when we ran out of
time.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:07 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> 
> From the minutes, I observe:
> 
> <sanjiva> Q1: Should WSDL retain the information whether different
> endpoints are related or not?
> <sanjiva> Glenn: @ F2F we decided yes
> <sanjiva> Jack: we would reject the idea of indicating relations
b'ween
> services until someone comes up with a definition of that relation and
> then we'd reconsider.
> 
> <sdl-scribe> JM: out of time, can't reach decision
> 
> BEA strongly believes that this decision shouldn't be revisited, or it
> should be re-affirmed.  The right decision was made at the F2F, and
I'm
> not sure what new information is available.
> 
> BTW, an analogy to Jack's request would be saying that we can't talk
about
> the equivalence of URIs until somebody defines what that equivalence
means
> across the entire web.  Well, it turns out that the equivalence
> relationship between resources is defined by the URI owner and we
don't
> need a global definition of what equivalence means to properly get
> equivalence testing.  See the difference between equivalence testing
and
> equivalence meaning?  It's up to the URI owner to make sure that it
hands
> out URIs that are equivalent if it wants other software to do
equivalence.
> 
> In the case of WSDL, if a service provider wants to tell clients that
> services are equivalent, we don't need to define that equivalence
> relationship for every web service.  Leave it to the service provider.
> 
> And did I really see that targetResource got dropped?  Wow, that was a
bit
> of a surprise.  Is this what is causing the reexamination of the
> equivalence of services decision?
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Lind, Steven D, ALABS
> > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:53 AM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> >
> >
> >  <<minutes-20030626.html>>
> > The minutes of today's (2003-06-26) conference call are attached.
> >
> > Respectfully submitted,
> >
> > Steve Lind
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------
> > Steven D. Lind                                Tel: 973-236-6787
> > 180 Park Avenue, Bldg. 2                Fax: 973-236-6453
> > Room 2G25                                    sdlind@att.com
> > Florham Park, NJ 07932
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------
> >
> >
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 15:59:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:25 GMT