RE: Minutes, Web Services Description Working Group 23 September 2004 telcon

Jacek presented this argument at the telco, with no evident support from
the other attendees.  In fact Arthur argued convincingly (if I can
paraphrase correctly) for the model that the WSDL document provides the
"description" for _a_ Web service, and that description has many
components, rather than a WSDL document providing a set of component
"descriptions" which together comprise the Web service.

Anyway, I hope you feel better knowing we at least considered this
topic.  If not, perhaps you can unearth last night's bottle for some
solace :-).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:11 AM
> To: Allen Brookes; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Minutes, Web Services Description Working Group 23
September
> 2004 telcon
> 
> 
> "Allen Brookes" <abrookes@roguewave.com> writes:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 16. Issue LC43: Rename <definitions> to <description> [.1]
> >
> > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC43
> > <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC43>
> >
> >
> >
> > [Marsh] Make LC42 editorial, hand it to editors for resolution.
> > [dbooth] me +1 to "description"
> > [Allen] Roberto: concern that name change will lead to reopening
other
> name
> > change issues.
> > [Allen] Resolved to rename "definitions" to "description".
> > [Allen] ACTION: Editors will implement change of "<definitions>" to
> > "<description>" everywhere.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Shouldn't that be "descriptions"? A <description> element contains
> many descriptions after all.
> 
> I'm personally not for changed it .. but I missed the call last nite
> (not sure what I drank to lose my mind so much).
> 
> Just to give some historical perspective- when WSDL was first being
> created this word was debated too .. in fact I wanted WSDL to stand
for
> "WS Definition L" because of <definitions> .. but the decision was
> to call it "WS Description L" and to keep <definitions> because what's
> inside <definitions> is a set of message, portType etc. *definitions*
> which in turn *describe* various aspects of the Web service. Thus,
WSDL
> describes a Web service by defining a bunch of stuff. That's how
> <definitions> and "WS Description L" were rationalized.
> 
> Sigh. Gotta stay off the bottle.
> 
> Sanjiva.
>

Received on Friday, 24 September 2004 17:00:22 UTC