RE: Requirement: Define Equivalence of WSDL Definitions

Yes, each extension should also define equivalence.

Defining a canonical form is one nice way to define equivalence. If you
have a canonical form, then you can define equivalence by saying that
two things are equivalent if and only if they have the same canonical form.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:59:52 -0700
  Message-ID:
<2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1082D00B0@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.mi>
  From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
  To: "Arthur Ryman" <arthur-ryman@rogers.com>, "W3C WS-Description"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
  Subject: RE: Requirement: Define Equivalence of WSDL Definitions

  +1. See R115 [1].

  Each extension to WSDL would have to define its own equivalence, right?

  An additional, compatible objective would be to define a canonical form.

  --Jeff

  [1]
  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-re
  qs.html


  -- Arthur Ryman

Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 15:29:51 UTC