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

Re: Summary, 9-11 Nov 2004 WS Description WG FTF: two objections

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:42:50 +0600
Message-ID: <008901c4ce70$97156fc0$bcffff0a@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi Amy,

> Following up to myself.  How tastelessly egotistical ....

I thought I'll reply before you get a chance to reply to
yourself again :).

> TIBCO won't lay down in the road if any particular MEPs are removed, so
> long as the mechanism for defining new MEPs remains as it is now, with
> no preference given to the MEPs published in part two or used in part
> three (apart from namespacing and likelihood of widespread
> implementation, sigh).

The "mechanism for new MEPs" == defining a namespace and sticking
that value to the @pattern .. so no one suggested removing that
capability for sure :).

Preference aspect- the basic point we were discussing is that if
we define a MEP URI but do not define any bindings then its
quite meaningless because people cannot use that pattern 
interoperably. 

> I'd like to suggest a rule for whether a MEP ought to be included or
> dropped.  This is, in fact, something like the less formal measure that
> the WG adopted some time ago, when it became more open to additional MEP
> definitions.
> 
> A MEP should be included in part two after CR if:
> 
> 1) some other specification makes reference to it
> 2) that specification puports to establish interoperability measures
> 
> This is fairly clear, and any of the MEPs referenced in part three
> automatically get in under these rules.  So would the MEPs specifically
> targeted in LC59f, if, for instance, TIBCO Software were to publish a
> binding specification using out-optional-in, with guidelines for
> measuring interoperability (well, in-optional-out is another story, but
> someone else is the narrator there).

Amy, I'm at a loss to understand what TIBCO would lose if TIBCO 
were to define the MEP URI too when they publish the binding.
Clearly if someone is implementing the binding defined by you guys
for that MEP then they should have no problem putting a URI
with the TIBCO name on it .. right? 

Apologies in advance if I'm not seeing something obvious.

Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 19:48:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT