- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:00:55 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Web Services Description" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
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