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

Re: Minutes, Web Services Description Working Group 23 September 2004 telcon

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:42:00 +0600
Message-ID: <0f0201c4a266$2fde53c0$90414109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

At least by missing the telecon I didn't have to argue with Arthur ;-).

One minor point: unless we changed things with me asleep, we
still allow any number of <service> components in a single
<description> (nee, <definitions>) component. So a single WSDL
document can contain components that describe one or more
services or parts of services .. most certainly not a
description of _a_ service.

Oh well, back to the bottle I guess.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:58 PM
Subject: RE: Minutes, Web Services Description Working Group 23 September
2004 telcon


>
> Jacek presented this argument at the telco, with no evident support from
> the other attendees.  In fact Arthur argued convincingly (if I can
> paraphrase correctly) for the model that the WSDL document provides the
> "description" for _a_ Web service, and that description has many
> components, rather than a WSDL document providing a set of component
> "descriptions" which together comprise the Web service.
>
> Anyway, I hope you feel better knowing we at least considered this
> topic.  If not, perhaps you can unearth last night's bottle for some
> solace:-).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:11 AM
> > To: Allen Brookes; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Minutes, Web Services Description Working Group 23
> September
> > 2004 telcon
> >
> >
> > "Allen Brookes" <abrookes@roguewave.com> writes:
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 16. Issue LC43: Rename <definitions> to <description> [.1]
> > >
> > > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC43
> > > <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC43>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Marsh] Make LC42 editorial, hand it to editors for resolution.
> > > [dbooth] me +1 to "description"
> > > [Allen] Roberto: concern that name change will lead to reopening
> other
> > name
> > > change issues.
> > > [Allen] Resolved to rename "definitions" to "description".
> > > [Allen] ACTION: Editors will implement change of "<definitions>" to
> > > "<description>" everywhere.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Shouldn't that be "descriptions"? A <description> element contains
> > many descriptions after all.
> >
> > I'm personally not for changed it .. but I missed the call last nite
> > (not sure what I drank to lose my mind so much).
> >
> > Just to give some historical perspective- when WSDL was first being
> > created this word was debated too .. in fact I wanted WSDL to stand
> for
> > "WS Definition L" because of <definitions> .. but the decision was
> > to call it "WS Description L" and to keep <definitions> because what's
> > inside <definitions> is a set of message, portType etc. *definitions*
> > which in turn *describe* various aspects of the Web service. Thus,
> WSDL
> > describes a Web service by defining a bunch of stuff. That's how
> > <definitions> and "WS Description L" were rationalized.
> >
> > Sigh. Gotta stay off the bottle.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
>
Received on Friday, 24 September 2004 18:53:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT