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

Yep agreed. +1.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:50 AM
Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003


> Fair enough...  It's tough being a chair.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:32 AM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am happy to be more forceful about limiting objections to WG
> > decisions.  If I had done that then the rejection a year ago of the
> > one-interface-per-service proposal would stand.  But attendance at the
> > last FTF was light and this is a fairly central piece of our shared
> > understanding of what a web service is.  (Although it was 
> > pointed out on
> > the call that this shared understanding may be a myth we can dispense
> > with.)
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of David Orchard
> > > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:38 AM
> > > To: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Indeed.  This is why I framed my response the way I did.  I haven't
> > been
> > > able to figure out if new information is available - like the design
> > > doesn't
> > > allow some implementations, it's made things too 
> > complicated, it can't
> > be
> > > validated in schema, or something new.
> > > 
> > > I've seen a couple messages of the type "didn't like it 
> > then and don't
> > > like
> > > it now", which imho isn't really strong enough a reason to open up a
> > > decision.
> > > Maybe if there was more of the "didn't like it then, and here's a
> > better
> > > solution for those use cases that motivated the change so we get to
> > > consensus" kind, but I haven't seen those either.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dave
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > > > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:06 AM
> > > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > BEA strongly believes that this decision shouldn't be
> > > > revisited, or it
> > > > > should be re-affirmed.  The right decision was made at the
> > > > F2F, and I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > sure what new information is available.
> > > >
> > > > This raises an interesting process question for me- as far as I
> > > > can tell there is no new information now from the time we made
> > > > the decisions that are currently spec'ed. So should we be
> > > > discussing it etc. etc.? Some people don't like it, but if we
> > > > don't have some process then its a waste of time going to the
> > > > F2Fs as those decisions are likely to be much more contentious
> > > > in the wider group as F2F has like 10-20 people and this list
> > > > has a lot. So if we re-open everything clearly its non-productive
> > > > to go to the F2F.
> > > >
> > > > Sanjiva.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 07:01:23 UTC