RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003

I don't know what the heck the issue is right now, but I want to restate again that we are and were +1 on KEEPING targetResource in WSDL... :)

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of David Orchard 
 Sent: Thu 6/26/2003 4:05 PM 
 To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
 Cc: 
 Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
 
 



 > -----Original Message----- 
 > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On 
 > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh 
 > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:59 PM 
 > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
 > Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > We did not drop @targetResource, although we considered it (and were 
 > close).  There is concern that this and the diagrams we added to our 
 > spec are generating non-converging discussion, and that the 
 > diagrams are 
 > not central to the purpose of WSDL in describing the flow of messages 
 > into and out from a Web service.  Likewise targetResource is 
 > solely for 
 > purposes of discovery (out of scope according to our charter).  Those 
 > are at least the questions I thought we were debating when we 
 > ran out of 
 > time. 
 > 

 Gotcha, sorry for my confusion.  I was asking about 
 "<sanjiva> JM point 1: anyone against removing @targetResource 
 <sdl-scribe> no one on call seems to object". 

 Thanks for the clarification, 
 Dave 

 ps. I won't ask for the definition of discovery that precludes identifying a resource :-)