RE: Editorial for Part 1 section 2.18

The Working Group resolved this issue (LC4 [1]) by agreeing to generate
such a table automatically using a stylesheet, subject to sufficient
resources forthcoming.   We will assume you accept this resolution if we
don't receive an explicit acknowledgement by 1 October.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC4

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 3:42 AM
> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Editorial for Part 1 section 2.18
> 
> 
> On Aug 3, 2004, at 11:00 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
> > I believe the property used to be called {namespace name} and was
> > populated with the value of wsdl:definitions/@targetNamespace.
> > Personally, I think {namespace name} is the better name, as the
> > property
> > is NOT a *target* namespace when it appears on an interface
component (
> > or any other component for that matter ). To my mine, the notion of
> > target namespace is purely a serialization detail.
> 
> FWIW, I have no stake in the naming, just the consistency. As it
> stands, there is not reference I was able to find to a {namespace
name}
> anywhere except this section. That leaves QName resolution undefined,
> AFAICT.
> 
> But while I'm here, I would find a table/index of components and
> component properties very handy (perhaps in the Primer).
> 
> (E.g., something like:
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appA)
> 
> Whoa, they liked it so much that the did it twice:
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#TermIndex
> 
> If people thought it was worth having, I'd volunteer to compile such
an
> index.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.

Received on Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:22:33 UTC