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

Sanjiva,

No, we still allow many <service> elements/components per description.

I notice that the two suggestions to use "descriptions" instead of 
"description" come from people who are multilingual. So maybe this is just 
a cultural difference. A description is a set of statements about a thing. 
In our case, we are describing a set of related Web services (which is why 
someone put their description into the same document). The document 
describes the Web services and is therefore a "description" of them. The 
description contains one or more components that define aspects of the Web 
services.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/



"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
09/24/2004 02:42 PM

To
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc

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







At least by missing the telecon I didn't have to argue with Arthur ;-).

One minor point: unless we changed things with me asleep, we
still allow any number of <service> components in a single
<description> (nee, <definitions>) component. So a single WSDL
document can contain components that describe one or more
services or parts of services .. most certainly not a
description of _a_ service.

Oh well, back to the bottle I guess.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:58 PM
Subject: 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.
> >
>