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

Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component Model Spec

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:50:01 -0400
To: Peter Madziak <peter.madziak@agfa.com>
Cc: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0C57EC54.906A133E-ON85256F2A.006174C7-85256F2A.0061F587@ca.ibm.com>
Peter,

Thx for the comments. Moving the Z into an Appendix is like putting it in 
a separate document from a readability and maintenance point of view. The 
best way to use Z is to augment the English text. The Z should be very 
close to the English text that it formalizes. That way you can see the 
correspondance and keep them in synch.

BTW, we plan to provide a version of the spec that hides the Z and that is 
cross-linked with the full version. It will be like collapsing and 
expanding the Z.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/



Peter Madziak <peter.madziak@agfa.com> 
10/01/2004 01:46 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component Model Spec







Arthur: 

With respect to the "bigger issue" I personally found the 
Z-notation-augmentation useful and welcome; however, if it was thought to 
be somewhat on the "esoteric side" would it make sense to move it to an 
appendix? 

Peter

-------
Peter Madziak
Software Architect
Agfa HealthCare
ph: 519-746-6210 (2577) 



Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
09/30/2004 09:01 AM 
        
        To:        Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> 
        cc:        www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org, (bcc: 
Peter Madziak/AMIMQ/CAN/AGFA/CA/BAYER) 
        Subject:        Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component 
Model Spec




Hugo, 

I am attaching a test file which contains unicode character entities which 
will show you how a lot of the symbols will look in Mozilla. 

I am expanding it to include a full comparison of all the alternate 
renderings (e.g. fonts, images, maybe even MathML ) but that is not 
complete yet. 



I'm confident that the rendering problem can be solved in several ways. 

I suggest we focus the discussion on the bigger issue of whether we should 
augment the English description with a standard, formal, 
machine-checkable, notation. 

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ 

Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
09/30/2004 07:28 AM 


To 
www-ws-desc@w3.org 
cc 

Subject 
Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component Model Spec










* Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> [2004-09-29 13:11-0400]
> Thanks, that works better for me (maybe for others, too), so now at 
least
> I can know what we're talking about (well, except for those imperials
> mispronouncing the word "zee").

I see something, but not the right thing, e.g. "e" instead of "?",
with Firefox 1.0PR under Linux.

Is it possible to see the Unicode version, which BTW is the normative
version we should produce as per my discussions internally at W3C
fulfilling my action item from Toronto. An alternative version with
PNGs is possible if we want to.

BTW, to test how your browser will deal with them, this message will
be archived on lists.w3.org and will contain the rightwards double
arrow character.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/




Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 17:50:39 GMT

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