Re: Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions

Ram,

Thx for the comment. The document as a whole is a description, which is 
why the root element is <description>. However, a case could be made for 
regarding each nested element, e.g. <interface>, <binding>, <service>, as 
the definition of a component. So a description is a collection of 
definitions. What do you think?

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
10/11/2006 12:25 AM

To
www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions






Hi,
 
I suggest a minor editorial change to the Part 1 [Core Language] regarding 
the usage of  the terms "WSDL 2.0 definitions" and "WSDL 2.0 
descriptions".
Quoting snippet from Section 2.1.2  [WSDL 2.0 definitions are represented 
in XML by one or more WSDL 2.0 Information Sets (Infosets), that is one or 
more description element information items]
Quoting snippet from Section 4.2.1 [ Its actual value indicates that the 
containing WSDL 2.0 document MAY contain qualified references to WSDL 2.0 
definitions in that namespace ]
These could be changed to WSDL 2.0 "descriptions" from "definitions" - 
ensures consistent terminology. 
 
HTH,
rgds,
Ram

-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor