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

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

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:50:41 -0700
To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <021c01c33cdd$020225c0$7106a8c0@beasys.com>
Fair enough...  It's tough being a chair.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:32 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> 
> 
> 
> 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 14:50:59 GMT

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