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: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:32:07 -0700
Message-ID: <1113DDB24D4A2841951BFDF86665EE1906BF1E98@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I am happy to be more forceful about limiting objections to WG
decisions.  If I had done that then the rejection a year ago of the
one-interface-per-service proposal would stand.  But attendance at the
last FTF was light and this is a fairly central piece of our shared
understanding of what a web service is.  (Although it was pointed out on
the call that this shared understanding may be a myth we can dispense
with.)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:38 AM
> To: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> 
> 
> Indeed.  This is why I framed my response the way I did.  I haven't
been
> able to figure out if new information is available - like the design
> doesn't
> allow some implementations, it's made things too complicated, it can't
be
> validated in schema, or something new.
> 
> I've seen a couple messages of the type "didn't like it then and don't
> like
> it now", which imho isn't really strong enough a reason to open up a
> decision.
> Maybe if there was more of the "didn't like it then, and here's a
better
> solution for those use cases that motivated the change so we get to
> consensus" kind, but I haven't seen those either.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:06 AM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> >
> >
> >
> > "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > This raises an interesting process question for me- as far as I
> > can tell there is no new information now from the time we made
> > the decisions that are currently spec'ed. So should we be
> > discussing it etc. etc.? Some people don't like it, but if we
> > don't have some process then its a waste of time going to the
> > F2Fs as those decisions are likely to be much more contentious
> > in the wider group as F2F has like 10-20 people and this list
> > has a lot. So if we re-open everything clearly its non-productive
> > to go to the F2F.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 13:32:19 GMT

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