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

Re: Issue 115

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:02:52 +0600
Message-ID: <169801c40d13$40e2c680$02c8a8c0@watson.ibm.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>

Included completing EDTODO from today's telecon. (Text goes into
section 6.3 as I clarified in previous email.)

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
To: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
<sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Issue 115


> Per today's teleconference, here is suggested rewording for the second
> sentence of section 6.1.1:
>
> [[
> The presence of an optional extensibility element or attribute MAY
> therefore augment the semantics of a WSDL document in ways that do not
> invalidate the existing semantics.  However, the presence of a mandatory
> extensibility element MAY alter the semantics of a WSDL document in ways
> that invalidate the existing semantics.
>
> Note: Authors of extensibility elements SHOULD avoid altering the existing
> semantics in ways that are likely to confuse users.
> ]]
>
>
> >Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:30:30 -0500
> >To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Jonathan Marsh"
> ><jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> >From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
> >Subject: Re: Issue 115
> >
> >It depends on what you mean by "change".  If you mean that an optional
> >extension may ADD to the existing semantics without invalidating them,
> >then I agree.  However, many people will take the word "change" to mean
> >that an optional extension may invalidate the semantics of something else
> >in the document.  We need to be clear that an optional extension does NOT
> >invalidate the semantics of anything in the WSDL document.  That's why
> >it's optional.  A mandatory extension MAY invalidate the semantics of
> >something in the WSDL document.  That's why you MUST understand it in
> >order to understand the document as a whole.  This is what section 6.1.1
> >tries to express.
> >
> >
> >At 09:26 AM 3/17/2004 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >>IIRC the request was to explicitly state that extensions change the
> >>semantics. Your wording implies that (adding props to the component
> >>model) but its not explicit.
> >>
> >>BTW even optional extensions change the semantics. However, a processor
> >>may ignore the change .. but it still does change the semantics.
> >>
> >>Sanjiva.
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
> >>To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; "WS Description List"
> >><www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> >>Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:07 AM
> >>Subject: Re: Issue 115
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think the second sentence adds more confusion than clarification,
> >>because
> >> > it doesn't distinguish optional extensions from mandatory extensions.
The
> >> > second sentence was:
> >> > [[
> >> > The presence of extensibility elements and attributes MAY therefore
change
> >> > the semantics of a WSDL document.
> >> > ]]
> >> >
> >> > I think it would be better to rename the title of 6.3 to
"Extensibility
> >>and
> >> > the Component Model" and delete the second sentence, such that 6.3
reads
> >>only:
> >> >
> >> > [[
> >> > 6.3 Extensibility and the Component Model
> >> >
> >> > As indicated above, it is expected that the presence of extensibility
> >> > elements and attributes will result in additional properties
appearing in
> >> > the component model.
> >> > ]]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > At 10:43 AM 3/15/2004 -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >The text added so far is at [1].  If this proves adequate, we can
> >> > >reassign this issue to part three while awaiting changes there.
> >> > >
> >> > >[1]
> >> >
>http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#exte
> >> > >nsibility-semantics.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > David Booth
> >> > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> >> > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> >
> >--
> >David Booth
> >W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> >Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 13:03:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT