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

Bob Cunnings

• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 11 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 11 May)

Christopher Ferris

• Re: Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available (Thursday, 2 May)

Dale Moberg

• RE: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference02-05-23) (Friday, 31 May)
• RE: Editorial issue - Terminology for Operation types (Thursday, 30 May)
• Final one for me RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Wednesday, 1 May)

David Booth

• Minutes of teleconference 02-05-23 (Thursday, 23 May)
• Editorial issue - Terminology for Operation types (Monday, 20 May)
• Minutes of teleconference 2002-05-02 (Thursday, 2 May)

David Martin

• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 9 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)

David Orchard

• Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available (Thursday, 2 May)
• Incorporation of WSD Usage Scenarios into WS Arch usage scenarios (Thursday, 2 May)

don@lexmark.com

• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Friday, 24 May)

Financial Service Group

• Looking For A Crisis Proof Investment? (Thursday, 30 May)

Francisco Curbera

• Re: Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal" (Thursday, 9 May)

Glen Daniels

• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns (Thursday, 30 May)

Grahame Grieve

• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)

Hurley, Oisin

• RE: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Thursday, 23 May)

Jacek Kopecky

• Re: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference02-05-23) (Friday, 31 May)
• Re: [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal (Wednesday, 29 May)
• [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal (Wednesday, 29 May)
• Re: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference 02-05-23) (Tuesday, 28 May)
• Re: Draft wording for <import> (Tuesday, 28 May)
• [amtf] 2002/5/23 telcon summary (Monday, 27 May)
• RE: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Monday, 27 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• [amtf] ServiceType? Service with multiple interfaces? (was: Re: First shot at Abstract Model) (Wednesday, 22 May)
• [amtf] incoming and outgoing operations? (was: Re: First shot at AbstractModel) (Wednesday, 22 May)
• [amtf] Multiple responses? (was: Re: First shot at Abstract Model) (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: [amtf] First shot at Abstract Model (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: [amtf] First shot at Abstract Model (Monday, 20 May)
• [amtf] First shot at Abstract Model (Sunday, 19 May)
• Re: Random thoughts on the Abstract Model Task Force (AMTF) (Sunday, 19 May)
• Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? (Thursday, 16 May)

James M Snell

• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? (Thursday, 16 May)

Jean-Jacques Moreau

• Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns (Friday, 31 May)
• Re: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference02-05-23) (Friday, 31 May)
• Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns (Friday, 31 May)
• Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns (Friday, 31 May)
• Re: Minutes 30 May 2002 WS Desc telcon (plain text) (Friday, 31 May)
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference02-05-23) (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: Draft wording for <import> (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: WSDL 1.2: be infoset based on not? (was: Re: Draft wording for <import>) (Tuesday, 28 May)
• Draft wording for <import> (Monday, 27 May)
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Friday, 24 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Friday, 24 May)
• MEPs: Hardcoded or not? (was: Re: Minutes of teleconference 02-05-23) (Friday, 24 May)
• Re: Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? (Friday, 24 May)
• Re: Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal" (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: WSDL Spec - SOAP Examples (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP) (Tuesday, 21 May)
• New issue: Representing safe operations (was: [TAG] how to use GET to make resources addressable) (Tuesday, 21 May)
• Re: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters in request URL (Friday, 17 May)
• Re: Issues 6a, 6d, 41. Define encoding into a request URL (Friday, 17 May)
• Raw telconf minutes, 20020516 (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: import/include issue (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters in request URL (Monday, 6 May)
• Re: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP) (Monday, 6 May)

Jeff Mischkinsky

• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Thursday, 23 May)

Jeffrey Schlimmer

• RE: Extensions (Tuesday, 28 May)
• RE: Editorial issue - Terminology for Operation types (Tuesday, 28 May)
• RE: Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? (Tuesday, 28 May)
• RE: WSDL 1.2: be infoset based on not? (was: Re: Draft wording for <import>) (Monday, 27 May)
• Extensions (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 16 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: W3C WSDL WG: 6b. Define encoding for non-ASCII characters in request URL (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Friday, 3 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Friday, 3 May)
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Friday, 3 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Friday, 3 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Friday, 3 May)
• RE: comment: documentation scenario and requirement (Friday, 3 May)
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] (Friday, 3 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Wednesday, 1 May)
• W3C WSDL WG Issue: 6e. Define behavior for missing search pattern part (Wednesday, 1 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Wednesday, 1 May)
• RE: import / include issue (Wednesday, 1 May)

Jochen.Ruetschlin@DaimlerChrysler.com

• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Thursday, 23 May)

Jonathan Marsh

• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Friday, 31 May)
• Minutes 30 May 2002 WS Desc telcon (plain text) (Thursday, 30 May)
• Minutes 30 May 2002 WS Desc telcon (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• Agenda for 30 May 2002 WS Description WG (Wednesday, 29 May)
• RE: Draft wording for <import> (Tuesday, 28 May)
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 28 May)
• Agenda for 23 May 2002 WS Description WG (Wednesday, 22 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 22 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 21 May)
• RE: Raw telconf minutes, 20020516 (Saturday, 18 May)
• Agenda for 16 May 2002 WS Description WG (Wednesday, 15 May)
• Minutes 9 May 2002 Telcon (Wednesday, 15 May)
• Agenda for 9 May 2002 WS Description WG (Wednesday, 8 May)
• RE: Extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 8 May)
• RE: Minutes of teleconference 2002-05-02 (Thursday, 2 May)
• Agenda for 2 May 2002 WS Description WG (Wednesday, 1 May)

Joyce Yang

• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Monday, 6 May)

jpauhlsson@echangeur.fr

• FTF meeting questions food (Thursday, 30 May)
• Regrets Conf call 9/5 (Tuesday, 7 May)

Keith Ballinger

• RE: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Friday, 24 May)
• RE: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP) (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: events (was: Re: Draft minutes of 2002/04/25 telcon) (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Wednesday, 1 May)
• RE: import / include issue (Wednesday, 1 May)

Krishna Sankar

• Random thoughts on the Abstract Model Task Force (AMTF) (Saturday, 11 May)

Liu, Kevin

• RE: FTF meeting questions food (Friday, 31 May)
• RE: update part1 docs (editors' drafts) .. - issue with wsdl vers ioning and service identity (Friday, 17 May)
• RE: update part1 docs (editors' drafts) .. - issue with name scop e of top elements (Friday, 17 May)

mario.jeckle@daimlerchrysler.com

• (CfP) Web Services -- Research, Standardization, and Deployment (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Wednesday, 22 May)

Mark Baker

• Re: Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available (Thursday, 2 May)

Mark J. Wick

• WSDL Spec - SOAP Examples (Monday, 20 May)

Matt Long

• RE: Draft wording for <import> (Wednesday, 29 May)

Mike Deem

• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 11 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 11 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Monday, 6 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Sunday, 5 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)
• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)

Mike_McHugh@grainger.com

• Regrets for today's telcon (Thursday, 16 May)

Nilo Mitra (EUS)

• RE: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Thursday, 23 May)

Paul Prescod

• Re: Issues 6a, 6d, 41. Define encoding into a request URL (Tuesday, 7 May)

Prasad Yendluri

• Re: [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal (Wednesday, 29 May)
• Issue: (recast) Notification of Failures Only MEP (Negative Acks?) (Friday, 24 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: [amtf] Multiple responses? (was: Re: First shot at Abstract Model) (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: [amtf] First shot at Abstract Model (Tuesday, 21 May)
• Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Tuesday, 21 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 11 May)
• Re: Random thoughts on the Abstract Model Task Force (AMTF) (Saturday, 11 May)
• Re: Conflicts of WSDL schemas (Wednesday, 8 May)
• Issue: WSDL must import schemas if types from them are used (Wednesday, 8 May)
• Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal" (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Wednesday, 1 May)
• Re: import / include issue (Wednesday, 1 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Wednesday, 1 May)

Roberto Chinnici

• Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 28 May)
• Re: Extensions (Tuesday, 28 May)
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 21 May)
• Revised extensibility proposal (Friday, 17 May)
• Re: Extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 8 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Wednesday, 8 May)
• Re: Extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 8 May)
• Extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• More on extensibility (Thursday, 2 May)

Ronald Daniel

• comment: documentation scenario and requirement (Friday, 3 May)

Russell Butek

• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Wednesday, 22 May)

ryman@ca.ibm.com

• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? (Thursday, 16 May)
• Minutes of the 09 May 2002 WS Description WG telcon (Thursday, 16 May)
• Comments on Web Service Usage Scenarios 23 April 2002 (Thursday, 2 May)

Sadiq, Waqar

• Use case for Publish/Subscribe - Push Model (Thursday, 16 May)
• Usecase document (Thursday, 16 May)

Sandeep Kumar

• RE: [amtf] 2002/5/23 telcon summary (Tuesday, 28 May)
• RE: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: More on extensibility (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: events (was: Re: Draft minutes of 2002/04/25 telcon) (Thursday, 2 May)

Sanjiva Weerawarana

• resolving issue-message-parts (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: Extensions (Tuesday, 28 May)
• Re: Extensions (Tuesday, 28 May)
• Re: Draft wording for <import> (Monday, 27 May)
• WSDL 1.2: be infoset based on not? (was: Re: Draft wording for <import>) (Monday, 27 May)
• Re: Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal" (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Issue: Can One-Way operations return faults? (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes (Tuesday, 21 May)
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 21 May)
• Re: Revised extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 21 May)
• Fw: [wsdl] Charact-set encoding - how to specify in WSDL? (Tuesday, 21 May)
• update part1 docs (editors' drafts) .. (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: Issue: should inout parameters be of the same type? (Thursday, 16 May)
• proposed issue and resolution: eliminate <message> construct (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Wednesday, 15 May)
• Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods? (Tuesday, 14 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 9 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 9 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: language extensibility [was: updated part1 draft's (editor's copy)] (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: import/include issue (Tuesday, 7 May)
• updated part1 draft's (editor's copy) (Tuesday, 7 May)
• issue: service type (Tuesday, 7 May)
• issue: portType extensibility (Tuesday, 7 May)
• import/include issue (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Monday, 6 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Monday, 6 May)
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Saturday, 4 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Saturday, 4 May)
• Re: Final one for me RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Friday, 3 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Thursday, 2 May)
• events (was: Re: Draft minutes of 2002/04/25 telcon) (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses (Wednesday, 1 May)
• issue: optional parts in <message>? (Wednesday, 1 May)
• Re: import / include issue (Wednesday, 1 May)
• Re: import / include issue (Wednesday, 1 May)

Scott Hinkelman

• Re: proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes (Thursday, 23 May)
• Re: proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes (Wednesday, 22 May)
• proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes (Friday, 17 May)

Sedukhin, Igor

• RE: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns (Friday, 31 May)
• RE: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns (Thursday, 30 May)
• Regarding your upcoming proposal for requiredness in extensions (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Regarding your upcoming proposal for requiredness in extensio ns (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Doubly revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Extensions (Tuesday, 28 May)
• RE: Extensions (Tuesday, 28 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 22 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 22 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 22 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 21 May)
• RE: Revised extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 21 May)
• RE: Extensibility proposal (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: Extensibility proposal (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: Extensibility proposal (Wednesday, 8 May)
• RE: Extensibility proposal (Tuesday, 7 May)
• RE: language extensibility [was: updated part1 draft's (editor's copy)] (Tuesday, 7 May)
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] (Tuesday, 7 May)
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: Web Services Description Conference call minutes for April 18 , 20 02 (Thursday, 2 May)

Swearingen Sandra Civ AFCA/ITCM

• Regrets for today's teleconference (Thursday, 16 May)

Tom Jordahl

• RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? (Monday, 6 May)

Vadhri, Srinivas

• RE: extensions [was: updated part1 docs (editor's drafts)] (Thursday, 2 May)

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