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

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

From: VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1) <vbp@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:46:02 -0400
Message-ID: <68157FD469848D45B9CBC2833AD552800215949E@xsun02.ptp.hp.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org


+1 from me too to keep targetResource under this name or another (by the
time this came up in the conf call I had been forced to leave the call)

William

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:03 PM
> To: Sedukhin, Igor S; David Orchard; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> 
> 
> 
> +1 for keeping targetResource
>    jeff
> At 01:13 PM 6/26/2003, Sedukhin, Igor S wrote:
> >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>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 Friday, 27 June 2003 02:46:04 GMT

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