RE: Issue 214: Refine "properties" terminology

What about qualifying them, as in :component property and feature property?

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:49 PM
> To: Web Services Description
> Subject: Issue 214: Refine "properties" terminology 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark is absolutely right [1] that we use the term "property" way too
> much.  Especially in [2] where one can use the terms ambiguously - we
> could talk about the properties of the Property component, 
> which include
> the property {value} whose value is the value of the property (sound
> circular?)
> 
> However, using the term "property" for the fields of the component is
> consistent with Schema and the infoset.  The term "property" 
> for the F&P
> property is consistent with SOAP.  The clash in those two sources of
> terms is what's causing the confusion.  If we change one to something
> else (like "attribute") we are likely to lose the correspondence with
> either SOAP or Schema, or our own syntax, and risk clashing with some
> other spec such as XML.
> 
> We are saved to an extent in that except for the Property component,
> there isn't much proximity between the use of the two terms.  I can't
> actually find a specific place in the spec where the meaning is
> ambiguous though, and if we can't identify a specific 
> problem, fiddling
> around will likely just make matters worse.  So I sadly 
> suggest we close
> this issue with no action.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x214
> [2]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20
> .html#Prop
> erty
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 18:45:15 UTC