RE: Proposed resolution to issue 143

err, Gudge had already done this...

From cvs log:

revision 1.20
date: 2004/02/27 10:06:03;  author: mgudgin;  state: Exp;  lines: +16
-19
Merged in Issue143 branch containing resolution of issue 143

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 15 March 2004 07:09
> To: Bijan Parsia; Martin Gudgin
> Cc: WS-Description WG
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution to issue 143
> 
> I have incorporated these changes into the draft to complete 
> the following EDTODO from the last telecon actions:
> 
> EDTODO    2004-02-26: Editors to adopting the diff in Gudge's proposal
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0232.html) 
>                       along with the two additional words to 
>                       Section 3.2. (#143)
> 
> Please review and comment if necessary.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
> To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> Cc: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution to issue 143
> 
> 
> > 
> > On Feb 26, 2004, at 11:01 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >>> I note that 3. is already covered by text in section 3.2:
> > >>>
> > >>> "The extension specification SHOULD, if necessary, define
> > >> additional
> > >>> properties of 2.1.1 The Definitions Component to hold the
> > >> components
> > >>> of the referenced type system. It is expected that additional
> > >>> extensibility attributes for Message Reference and 
> Fault Reference
> > >>> components will also be defined, along with a mechanism for
> > >> resolving
> > >>> the values of those attributes to a particular imported 
> type system
> > >>> component."
> > >>
> > >> Am I wrong in reading that to say that my extensibility
> > >> attribute owlClass should populate the current {message}
> > >> component property with URIs which resolve to components in
> > >> my new {classes} collection property? If so, that seems to
> > >> contradict things in section 2.4.
> > >
> > > No, I'd expect you to add a new property to the message reference
> > > component. So we should amend the above text to read
> > >
> > > "additional properties and extensibility attributes"
> > 
> > I'm fine with this. I just want it to be clear.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Bijan Parsia.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 14:22:18 UTC