W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2006

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

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:55:21 -0400
To: "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3DEA6C1C.5E61B192-ON85257204.006671FC-85257204.0067F043@ca.ibm.com>
Ram,

Agreed, in 2.1.2 we are refering to documents so they should be called 
"descriptions".

Jonathan, let's accept this as editorial. OK?

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 02:03 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions






Hi Arthur,
 
Thanks a lot for the explanation. You are absolutely right. 
This actually renders the comment against the snippet in section 4.2.1 
invalid. 

Correct me if I am wrong. I assume that the edition is pretty minor then - 
Just the snippet in section 2.1.2 [as I quoted earlier] cd be edited to 
refer to "descriptions" rather than definitions. [since it makes the 
statement that wsdl 2.0 definitions are represented as "description" 
element information items.]. 
 
Regards!
Ram
 
 

 
On 10/11/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote: 

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 



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

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor 
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 18:55:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:42 GMT