- From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:01:19 +0100
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org >[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] >Sent: Monday, Feb 14, 2005 15:32 PM >To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org >Subject: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference > >... are available for review at: > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/02/14-ws-addr-minutes.html > >as well as attached. > >Thanks to Mark Peel for scribing. > > After reading the minutes, I realized that Marc and I talked past each other and I could not express what I was getting at correctly about Issue048. Since some of what I have said seem to be missing as well, a correction is in order. What I was trying to say was that Reference Parameters may be used to distinguish EPRs, NOT Endpoints. Apologies for not noticing this in the IRC and correcting it at the call. Issue048 is about comparison of EPRs, NOT about Endpoints. There is a very important distinction here, as there are three different notions we are dealing with, EPRs, Endpoint and Endpoint Components in WSDL. The terms are used interchangeably and it causes confusion. IMO, most of my problems with the EPR comparison section is about this interchangeable use of language. I also indicated in the call that we have just made a decision about Issue020 Subissue iv (note that the statement in the minutes should read "Issue 20 subissue iv closed with Tony's amendment" instead of "Issue 20 subissue vi closed with Tony's amendment") which clarified the differences between EPR, Endpoint, Endpoint Component. Since there can be many EPRs that may be used to address a specific endpoint which may in fact have multiple descriptions, I was trying to indicate that when comparing two EPRs Reference Parameters may be significant. This does not mean that the endpoints that two EPRs are referring to are different. Hence, I don't believe we have an issue here about identity, etc. I will make rest of my points in the appropriate thread for Issue048 why the section is broken. This note is just to correct the minutes.
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 23:02:08 UTC