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

RE: Minutes, 24 Sept 2003 WS Desc WG FTF

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:43:44 -0700
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02ab01c386eb$e7a08880$470ba8c0@beasys.com>
I'm confused by what happened on this.  My understanding is that the WSDL WG
made a decision about what it thought was the best approach for component
designators.  It then asked the TAG what the TAG thought of the WSDL WG's
decision.  The TAG has certainly not said that the WSDL WG's approach is
poor.  In fact, the TAG hasn't said anything.  This has been annoying to me,
but then the TAG is trying to get to Last Call on the web arch document so
the rationale is reasonable.  I should point out to the group that I did
volunteer to attend the f2f to cover this issue if it came up.

I had not realized that the WSDL WG was being held up - seemed to me the
onus was on the TAG to say yay or nay.

I also don't think that using URIs for component designators is solely an
RDF issue.  It seems to be more of a web architecture issue - hence why the
TAG was asked :-).  I imagine that the media type registration will need to
say something about the frag-id syntax, so I don't think the dependency is
removed.

I encourage the group to reconsider it's decision to move component
designators into the RDF mapping document.  Failing that, I will inform the
TAG of the WSDL WG's decision and then let the chips fall where they may.

Cheers,
Dave

> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 10:00 WSDL Component Designators [46]
>       Draft TAG finding [47]
> 
>  [46] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0075.html
>  [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0054.html
> 
> 
> [No minutes?  Chair recalls that we were unable to quickly 
> choose an ideal
> candidate from the TAG draft finding, and thus approved 
> moving the appendix into the RDF mapping document to 
> eliminate a dependency of unknown duration.]
> 
>  


Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 20:50:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT