RE: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology)

Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment
LC115 [1].  The Working Group referred this to the editors for
incorporation.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC115

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 1:16 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; www-qa@w3.org; Dan Connolly
> Subject: Re: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology)
> 
> 
> Some afterthoughts:
> 
> Section 8.1 is the one that defines (or will define, once the
> editorial
> changes are complete) a "conforming WSDL 2.0 document".  (We currently
> use the term "WSDL document" in a number of places in the spec, so
> these
> also need to be changed to "conforming WSDL 2.0 document".  Or perhaps
> we should just make the term be "WSDL 2.0 document", to be slightly
> briefer.)
> 
> It occurs to me that it would also make sense to move Part 1 section
> 8.1
> to the beginning of the spec, so that the reader can begin with the
> overall understanding of what constitutes a conformant WSDL 2.0
> document
> (which is what section 8.1 defines), and then drill down as the spec
> is
> read.
> 
> I suggest moving section 8.1 immediately after section 1.1, so that
> section 1 would proceed as follows:
> 	1.1 says what WSDL is all about (no change);
> 	1.2 (formerly 8.1) says what consitutes a conformant WSDL 2.0
> document;
> 	1.3 (formerly 1.2) says what it means (no change);
> 	1.4 (formerly 1.3) defines notational conventions (no change).
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 16:18, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 15:23 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> > > * Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > >p.p.s. I thought I saw a "define your terms" bit in SpecGL,
> > > >but I don't see it.
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#define-terms-
> section
> >
> > Ah... thanks.
> >
> > And I see that my comment is redundant w.r.t. Dom's earlier comments
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-
> comments/2004Aug/0000.html
> >
> > to which the WSD WG replied...
> >
> > "We agreed to add a definition of WSDL Document as a
> wsdl:definitions
> > element and its descendents."
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-
> comments/2004Sep/0030.html
> >
> >
> > That seems pretty good. I look forward to a new draft so I can check
> > it in context.
> --
> 
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>

Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 03:44:19 UTC