www-ws-desc@w3.org from May 2002 by date

Friday, 31 May 2002

• RE: FTF meeting questions food Liu, Kevin
• RE: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference02-05-23) Dale Moberg
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Jonathan Marsh
• Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference02-05-23) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference02-05-23) Jacek Kopecky
• Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Minutes 30 May 2002 WS Desc telcon (plain text) Jean-Jacques Moreau

Thursday, 30 May 2002

• Minutes 30 May 2002 WS Desc telcon (plain text) Jonathan Marsh
• Minutes 30 May 2002 WS Desc telcon Jonathan Marsh
• FTF meeting questions food jpauhlsson@echangeur.fr
• RE: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Editorial issue - Terminology for Operation types Dale Moberg
• Regarding your upcoming proposal for requiredness in extensions Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Regarding your upcoming proposal for requiredness in extensio ns Sedukhin, Igor
• resolving issue-message-parts Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Glen Daniels
• ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns Glen Daniels
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference02-05-23) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: Draft wording for <import> Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor

Wednesday, 29 May 2002

• Agenda for 30 May 2002 WS Description WG Jonathan Marsh
• Re: [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal Jacek Kopecky
• Re: [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal Prasad Yendluri

Thursday, 30 May 2002

• Looking For A Crisis Proof Investment? Financial Service Group

Wednesday, 29 May 2002

• [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Draft wording for <import> Matt Long

Tuesday, 28 May 2002

• RE: Draft wording for <import> Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Extensions Sedukhin, Igor
• Doubly revised extensibility proposal Roberto Chinnici
• Re: Extensions Roberto Chinnici
• RE: Extensions Jeffrey Schlimmer
• Re: Extensions Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Extensions Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference 02-05-23) Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Draft wording for <import> Jacek Kopecky
• Re: WSDL 1.2: be infoset based on not? (was: Re: Draft wording for <import>) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: [amtf] 2002/5/23 telcon summary Sandeep Kumar
• Re: Extensions Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Editorial issue - Terminology for Operation types Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? Jeffrey Schlimmer

Monday, 27 May 2002

• RE: WSDL 1.2: be infoset based on not? (was: Re: Draft wording for <import>) Jeffrey Schlimmer
• Re: Draft wording for <import> Sanjiva Weerawarana
• WSDL 1.2: be infoset based on not? (was: Re: Draft wording for <import>) Sanjiva Weerawarana
• [amtf] 2002/5/23 telcon summary Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Jacek Kopecky
• Draft wording for <import> Jean-Jacques Moreau

Friday, 24 May 2002

• Issue: (recast) Notification of Failures Only MEP (Negative Acks?) Prasad Yendluri
• RE: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Keith Ballinger
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? don@lexmark.com
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference 02-05-23) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? Jean-Jacques Moreau

Thursday, 23 May 2002

• Extensions Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Keith Ballinger
• Minutes of teleconference 02-05-23 David Booth
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Jeff Mischkinsky
• RE: Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Joyce Yang
• RE: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Nilo Mitra (EUS)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal" Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Hurley, Oisin
• Re: proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes Scott Hinkelman
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• (CfP) Web Services -- Research, Standardization, and Deployment mario.jeckle@daimlerchrysler.com
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Russell Butek
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Russell Butek
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Jochen.Ruetschlin@DaimlerChrysler.com
• Re: Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal" Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Sandeep Kumar
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Keith Ballinger
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Jeff Mischkinsky

Wednesday, 22 May 2002

• Re: Revised extensibility proposal Roberto Chinnici
• Re: [amtf] Multiple responses? (was: Re: First shot at Abstract Model) Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? mario.jeckle@daimlerchrysler.com
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Jacek Kopecky
• Agenda for 23 May 2002 WS Description WG Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Prasad Yendluri
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes Scott Hinkelman
• [amtf] ServiceType? Service with multiple interfaces? (was: Re: First shot at Abstract Model) Jacek Kopecky
• [amtf] incoming and outgoing operations? (was: Re: First shot at AbstractModel) Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• [amtf] Multiple responses? (was: Re: First shot at Abstract Model) Jacek Kopecky
• Re: [amtf] First shot at Abstract Model Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Russell Butek
• Re: Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: WSDL Spec - SOAP Examples Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Jean-Jacques Moreau

Tuesday, 21 May 2002

• Re: [amtf] First shot at Abstract Model Prasad Yendluri
• Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal Roberto Chinnici
• Re: proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• New issue: Representing safe operations (was: [TAG] how to use GET to make resources addressable) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal Sanjiva Weerawarana

Monday, 20 May 2002

• Editorial issue - Terminology for Operation types David Booth

Tuesday, 21 May 2002

• Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? Sanjiva Weerawarana

Monday, 20 May 2002

• WSDL Spec - SOAP Examples Mark J. Wick
• Re: [amtf] First shot at Abstract Model Jacek Kopecky

Sunday, 19 May 2002

• [amtf] First shot at Abstract Model Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Random thoughts on the Abstract Model Task Force (AMTF) Jacek Kopecky

Saturday, 18 May 2002

• RE: Raw telconf minutes, 20020516 Jonathan Marsh

Friday, 17 May 2002

• proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes Scott Hinkelman
• Revised extensibility proposal Roberto Chinnici
• Re: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters in request URL Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: update part1 docs (editors' drafts) .. - issue with wsdl vers ioning and service identity Liu, Kevin
• Re: Issues 6a, 6d, 41. Define encoding into a request URL Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: update part1 docs (editors' drafts) .. - issue with name scop e of top elements Liu, Kevin

Thursday, 16 May 2002

• update part1 docs (editors' drafts) .. Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? James M Snell
• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• proposed issue and resolution: eliminate <message> construct Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? ryman@ca.ibm.com
• Use case for Publish/Subscribe - Push Model Sadiq, Waqar
• Raw telconf minutes, 20020516 Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? Jacek Kopecky
• Regrets for today's teleconference Swearingen Sandra Civ AFCA/ITCM
• Regrets for today's telcon Mike_McHugh@grainger.com
• Usecase document Sadiq, Waqar
• Minutes of the 09 May 2002 WS Description WG telcon ryman@ca.ibm.com
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer

Wednesday, 15 May 2002

• Agenda for 16 May 2002 WS Description WG Jonathan Marsh
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Minutes 9 May 2002 Telcon Jonathan Marsh

Tuesday, 14 May 2002

• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Sanjiva Weerawarana

Saturday, 11 May 2002

• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Random thoughts on the Abstract Model Task Force (AMTF) Prasad Yendluri
• Random thoughts on the Abstract Model Task Force (AMTF) Krishna Sankar
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Bob Cunnings
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Mike Deem
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Bob Cunnings
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Mike Deem

Thursday, 9 May 2002

• Re: Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal" Francisco Curbera
• RE: Extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP) Keith Ballinger
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? David Martin
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters in request URL Jeffrey Schlimmer

Wednesday, 8 May 2002

• Re: Extensibility proposal Roberto Chinnici
• Agenda for 9 May 2002 WS Description WG Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Extensibility proposal Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Roberto Chinnici
• Re: Conflicts of WSDL schemas Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Extensibility proposal Roberto Chinnici
• Issue: WSDL must import schemas if types from them are used Prasad Yendluri

Tuesday, 7 May 2002

• Re: Issues 6a, 6d, 41. Define encoding into a request URL Paul Prescod
• Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal" Prasad Yendluri
• RE: Extensibility proposal Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• Extensibility proposal Roberto Chinnici
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Mike Deem
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: language extensibility [was: updated part1 draft's (editor's copy)] Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: language extensibility [was: updated part1 draft's (editor's copy)] Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Regrets Conf call 9/5 jpauhlsson@echangeur.fr
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: import/include issue Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: import/include issue Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? David Martin
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• updated part1 draft's (editor's copy) Sanjiva Weerawarana
• issue: service type Sanjiva Weerawarana
• issue: portType extensibility Sanjiva Weerawarana
• import/include issue Sanjiva Weerawarana

Monday, 6 May 2002

• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? Joyce Yang
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Mike Deem
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Tom Jordahl
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters in request URL Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP) Jean-Jacques Moreau

Sunday, 5 May 2002

• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Mike Deem

Saturday, 4 May 2002

• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Mike Deem
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Mike Deem

Friday, 3 May 2002

• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer

Saturday, 4 May 2002

• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Mike Deem
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana

Friday, 3 May 2002

• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: comment: documentation scenario and requirement Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] Jeffrey Schlimmer
• comment: documentation scenario and requirement Ronald Daniel
• Re: Final one for me RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Sanjiva Weerawarana

Thursday, 2 May 2002

• RE: Minutes of teleconference 2002-05-02 Jonathan Marsh
• Minutes of teleconference 2002-05-02 David Booth
• Re: Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available Mark Baker
• Re: Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available Christopher Ferris
• Final one for me RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Dale Moberg
• Comments on Web Service Usage Scenarios 23 April 2002 ryman@ca.ibm.com
• Re: Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available Mark Baker
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] Vadhri, Srinivas
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] Sedukhin, Igor
• RE: Web Services Description Conference call minutes for April 18 , 20 02 Sedukhin, Igor
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: events (was: Re: Draft minutes of 2002/04/25 telcon) Keith Ballinger
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Keith Ballinger
• RE: More on extensibility Sandeep Kumar
• RE: events (was: Re: Draft minutes of 2002/04/25 telcon) Sandeep Kumar
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Roberto Chinnici
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Prasad Yendluri
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• More on extensibility Roberto Chinnici
• RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Keith Ballinger
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• events (was: Re: Draft minutes of 2002/04/25 telcon) Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Grahame Grieve
• Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available David Orchard
• Incorporation of WSD Usage Scenarios into WS Arch usage scenarios David Orchard

Wednesday, 1 May 2002

• RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Dale Moberg
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Keith Ballinger
• Agenda for 2 May 2002 WS Description WG Jonathan Marsh
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• W3C WSDL WG Issue: 6e. Define behavior for missing search pattern part Jeffrey Schlimmer
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? Jeffrey Schlimmer
• Re: import / include issue Prasad Yendluri
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses Sanjiva Weerawarana
• issue: optional parts in <message>? Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: import / include issue Jeffrey Schlimmer
• Re: import / include issue Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: import / include issue Keith Ballinger
• Re: import / include issue Sanjiva Weerawarana

Last message date: Friday, 31 May 2002 19:40:30 UTC