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

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

From: Sedukhin, Igor S <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:13:06 -0400
Message-ID: <87527035FDD42A428221FA578D4A9A5B0103552A@usilms24.ca.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I don't know what the heck the issue is right now, but I want to restate again that we are and were +1 on KEEPING targetResource in WSDL... :)

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of David Orchard 
	Sent: Thu 6/26/2003 4:05 PM 
	To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
	
	



	> -----Original Message----- 
	> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On 
	> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh 
	> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:59 PM 
	> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	> Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 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. 
	> 

	Gotcha, sorry for my confusion.  I was asking about 
	"<sanjiva> JM point 1: anyone against removing @targetResource 
	<sdl-scribe> no one on call seems to object". 

	Thanks for the clarification, 
	Dave 

	ps. I won't ask for the definition of discovery that precludes identifying a resource :-) 

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 16:13:07 GMT

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