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

Re: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:01:49 -0700
Message-Id: <8ED1410C-1E56-11D9-B076-000D93ADFB4C@oracle.com>
Cc: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, WS-Choreography List <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, W3C Group <w3c-ws-cg@w3.org>, "<www-ws-desc@w3.org>" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>

On Oct 05, 2004, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> I'll enter all these as last call comments except #6, which is simply a
> statement of support for the status quo.

Sorry, I don't understand why this wouldn't be added to the LC 
comments. It is a statement in support of an item which has had a 
minority report asking that the feature be removed. Seems like it is 
rather relevant and should be part of the record.


>   Some of your items, for
> instance #4, could use some additional explanation; what specifically 
> is
> unclear about wsdlLocation?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steve Ross-Talbot [mailto:steve@enigmatec.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:10 AM
>> To: Jonathan Marsh
>> Cc: WS-Choreography List; W3C Group; www-ws-desc@w3.org
>> Subject: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments
>> Dear Jonathan,
>> I am writing to you on behalf of the W3C Choreography Working Group.
> As
>> promised we have reviewed the WSDL2.0
>> documents at our Face to Face meeting. Our comments and requirements
>> are as follows:
>> 1. We would like to see the Web Services Description Working Group
>> define bindings for the 4 remaining MEPs for which
>>      no bindings have been defined or we would like them removed from
>> the specification.
>> 2. WSDL2.0 is unclear about it's support for attachment technologies
>> and this is a concern to us. We would like to see
>>      some clarity with respect to what and how attachment technologies
>> will be supported. We have spent some time looking
>>      at the WS-I AP1.0 profile  as an exemplar and would greatly
>> appreciate clarity on what you intend to support and how it
>>      might differ from AP1.0.
>> 3. We recommend that a section is added describing the differences
>> between WSDL1.0 and WSDL2.0. This should
>>      include differences in MEP's between the two specifications.
>> 4. We seek clarification in the text of WSDL2.0 as to the use of
>> wsdlLocation.
>> 5. We seek clarification in the text of WSDL 2.0 for component-to-XML
>> InfoSet mapping, to address issues such as how
>>       serialization is performed in a manner compatible with XML
> Schema.
>> 6. As we indicated in a previous letter to you [url] we are pleased to
>> see the presence of F&P and intend to use this in our
>>      work.
>> 7. We noted that the previous composistors work within WSD WG has not
>> made it into the last call document, and similar
>>      to point 6, this is a capability that we need and would use if it
>> were present.
>> I you have any questions or wish to seek clarification from the Web
>> Services Choreography WG please do not hesitate to
>> contact us.
>> Best of luck in your endeavours.
>> Kind Regards
>> Steve Ross-Talbot
>> co-Chair W3C Web Services Choreography
>> C: +44 7855 268 848
>> H: +44 1273 491841
>> www.enigmatec.net
Jeff Mischkinsky					jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Web Services Standards		+1(650)506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff	500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9
Oracle Corporation					Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 03:03:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:45 UTC