- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:48:44 -0700
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Danny, thanks for your encouragement and feedback! The definitions in a requirements document have to walk a fine line: enough detail to remove ambiguity in requirements and discussion, but not too much detail to imply a solution. My view on your specific question is that a service contains >= 1 port and some other, service-specific information. When we publish a draft of the new spec, this (and many other) questions should be answered. In the meantime, the definitions contained in / implied by the WSDL 1.1 draft are probably the most reasonable. --Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny666@virgilio.it] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 3:22 PM To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org Subject: Working draft I heartedly welcome this draft, and look forward to it leading to a useful specification. Hopefully the faults obvious in similar specifications [1,2] will be avoided. I for one would like to see a lot more informative content, even (especially?) at this stage, because for example : EndPoint (AKA Port) ... Service [Definition: A collection of EndPoints is called Service.] so a collection of Ports is Service? I'm Clueless. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP [2] http://www.citnames.com/2001/04/rpp.htm --- Danny Ayers <stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff>
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 18:52:43 UTC