W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Incorporating Service References in Part1

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:54:28 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202500E27@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Here is the summary I published of the resolution
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0062.html):

  Endpoint references:
    RESOLVED: Add a paragraph in the spec describing that <wsdl:service>
              can show up on the wire as a service reference.  Primer 
              will have some examples (see Roberto's counterproposal 
              as a basis).
    RESOLVED: Make top WSDL elements global in the schema to facilitate
              reuse.
    ISSUE #95: Should wsdl:service/@name be optional? We don't want to
              force users to have to invent a name when <wsdl:service>
              appears on the wire, but currently we require @name within

              the context of a wsdl:description.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:03 PM
> To: Umit Yalcinalp; WS Description List
> Subject: Re: Incorporating Service References in Part1
> 
> 
> "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> writes:
> >
> > As I was re-reading the specification, it has come to my attention
that
> > the current specification does not reflect the decisions we made at
the
> > last f2f[1]. I should add a clarification to the last resolution in
[1]
> > because we have agreed that wsdl:ServiceType and derived types from
it
> > are allowed to be a reference per discussions on Roberto's analysis
[2]
> > in order to fix interface attribute.
> 
> Hmm. I don't recall us deciding to accept the service reference
approach
> you were advocating .. but I will go back and read the minute to
> refresh my memory (still getting back to normal from the break :)).
> 
> > I would like to ask the editors of Part 1 as well as the Primer to
> > clarify who is chartered to do provide the writeups and the
timelines we
> > can expect to see the changes.  I will be more than happy to provide
the
> > paragraph and/or examples in question, if need be.
> 
> Also note that the publication was up-to-date to the point that
> the editors could manage during the available timeframe. I think
> you know that ..
> 
> > It may well be that the service refs are already integrated to some
> > version that is in the repository, but I am not seeing them as the
URL
> > from the wg's page is to the editor's copy (dated 2004/01/06) and
that
> > document does not define service references. If that is the case,
can
> > the wg's page be updated to reflect the correct URL please.
> 
> AFAIK there's nothing other than the published versions and the
> editor's drafts.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 17:59:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT