W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Issue 214: Refine "properties" terminology

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:00:55 -0700
Message-Id: <83A4A7F4-C6FB-11D8-A9BF-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: "Web Services Description" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>

Because discussion of component properties in the drafts is much more  
prevalent, I suggest changing references to property-and-feature-style  
properties to "Interaction Properties". For example, the first  
paragraph of section 2.8.1 of part one reads:

"""A Property component describes the set of possible values  for a  
particular property. The permissible values are  specified by  
references to a Schema description. A property is typically used to  
control a feature's  behavior. Properties, and hence property values,  
can be  shared amongst features."""

After this change, it would read:

"""An Interaction Property component describes the set of possible  
values for a particular interaction property, by references to a Schema  
description. Interaction properties are typically used to control  
features' behaviours, and may be shared (along with their values)  
amongst features."""

On Jun 23, 2004, at 2:48 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> Mark is absolutely right [1] that we use the term "property" way too
> much.  Especially in [2] where one can use the terms ambiguously - we
> could talk about the properties of the Property component, which  
> include
> the property {value} whose value is the value of the property (sound
> circular?)
> However, using the term "property" for the fields of the component is
> consistent with Schema and the infoset.  The term "property" for the  
> F&P
> property is consistent with SOAP.  The clash in those two sources of
> terms is what's causing the confusion.  If we change one to something
> else (like "attribute") we are likely to lose the correspondence with
> either SOAP or Schema, or our own syntax, and risk clashing with some
> other spec such as XML.
> We are saved to an extent in that except for the Property component,
> there isn't much proximity between the use of the two terms.  I can't
> actually find a specific place in the spec where the meaning is
> ambiguous though, and if we can't identify a specific problem, fiddling
> around will likely just make matters worse.  So I sadly suggest we  
> close
> this issue with no action.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x214
> [2]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/ 
> wsdl20.html#Prop
> erty

Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 19:03:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:41 UTC