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

+1 for keeping targetResource
   jeff
At 01:13 PM 6/26/2003, Sedukhin, Igor S wrote:
>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>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 :-)

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 19:05:21 UTC