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

RE: Issue 214: Refine "properties" terminology

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:51:24 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA20409ABE9@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Web Services Description" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Sometimes that gets awkward too: "the component properties of the
Property component..."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:45 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh; Web Services Description
> Subject: 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 18:51:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT