Re: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors

"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> 
> Please look at the context of my comment. Jean-Jacques and Tom's
> comments were specifically around the relationship between target
> namespace and WSDL components. All I was saying is that that mapping
> will be clean, obvious, non-ambiguous. I was not making any claims about
> the spec as a whole. 

I certainly hope the whole spec is an improvement for both WSDL 1.1 
and from the current entire spec.

> That said, I would hope that the spec will at least be clearer than it
> is currently. If we don't AIM to produce a spec that is clear and
> consistent then you are corrent, we never will.

;-) Motherhood-and-apple-pie, but agreed.

> As an aside, you seem unconvinced that an abstract model will be useful,

That was when it wasn't clear what this "abstract" model was going 
to be. I don't think you were involved in the early calls when it
wasn't at all clear (at least to me) what shape it would take. Now
that I have written one, I wouldn't at all call it an "abtract model"
of WSDL - its just a syntax independent way to describe the concepts
in WSDL. That's why I like the "Conceptual Framework" title much
better (I lifted that from SOAP 1.2 I believe).

> yet for some reason you have taken it upon yourself to attempt to
> produce one, even though that is work that I offered to do, why is this?
> 
> I thought I agreed to produce an abstract model for presentation to the
> WG by July 12th, everyone seemed happy with that schedule, what has
> changed in the mean time?

I produced one because it didn't make sense for me to just take the 
syntax and infosetize it without attempting to provide some meaning.
I feel, and I believe I have heard so from several others too, that
the current editor's draft is a much improved spec from what was
known as WSDL 1.1. 

Now that a conceptual framework exists, I don't think we should 
throw it away just because of NIH. If you have ways to improve it,
please go for it, but please don't keep saying "there'll be a 
better one coming so why did you do it?".

Sanjiva.

Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 08:51:20 UTC