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

WSD charter goal: Simplicity

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:50:46 -0800
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <041301c3e14a$f08feee0$6401a8c0@beasys.com>

Here's roughly what we are thinking of sending in for the AC review on the
topic of simple syntax, your comments appreciated.  If this is unnecessary,
please let me know as well.

The Charter for the WSD Working Group says that simplicity is a goal for
WSDL [1].  We have observed [2] that a bare minimum operational WSD requires
25 WSD constructs, excluding the schema for the message.  In our message, we
made 3 orthogonal proposals.  We thought that any of them either single or
in combination might be useful to simplify the authoring of WSD.  We do not
as a rule make suggestions of the form "please change X" without also
proposing at least one solution, aka "be part of the solution not part of
the problem", hence our proposals.  We are extremely open to discussing our
proposals (though we are quite fond of the inline syntax proposal and
default value proposals) or other solutions, but in the context that we are
concerned that WSD 2.0 may not meet an 80/20 case for a WSD author.  There
has been some discussion in the WG of comparing different solutions for a
simpler or 80/20 syntax, ie [3].  However, others, ie [4], have argued that
a simple syntax is out of scope for the WG as the charter is written.

As such, we would like the charter to be clearer that developing a simple
syntax is in scope for the WG.  We are expressly concerned that "waiting"
for a simple syntax may make it impossible to develop such a syntax.
Imagine if XPath did not have the "/" operator....

As the charter has left this point seemingly underspecified, we request that
the language be tightened up.  We suggest something along the lines of "The
WG is encouraged to provide a simple syntax", or "The WG shall use it's
discretion to determine the feasibility of specifying syntax that may
simplify or subset the WSD functionality."  This way the WG can decide,
based upon it's schedule, availability of resources, etc. whether or not to
undertake this work.

I also suggest that if other AC members believe that the WSD WG MUST or
SHOULD provide a simpler syntax, then they may want to indicate that earlier
than a Last Call review.

Cheers,
Dave

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/ws-desc-charter.html#simplicity
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0071.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0105.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0092.html
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2004 19:54:06 GMT

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