- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:55:21 -0400
- To: "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF3DEA6C1C.5E61B192-ON85257204.006671FC-85257204.0067F043@ca.ibm.com>
Ram, Agreed, in 2.1.2 we are refering to documents so they should be called "descriptions". Jonathan, let's accept this as editorial. OK? Arthur Ryman, IBM Software Group, Rational Division blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ 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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 10/11/2006 02:03 PM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA cc www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org Subject Re: Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions Hi Arthur, Thanks a lot for the explanation. You are absolutely right. This actually renders the comment against the snippet in section 4.2.1 invalid. Correct me if I am wrong. I assume that the edition is pretty minor then - Just the snippet in section 2.1.2 [as I quoted earlier] cd be edited to refer to "descriptions" rather than definitions. [since it makes the statement that wsdl 2.0 definitions are represented as "description" element information items.]. Regards! Ram On 10/11/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote: Ram, Thx for the comment. The document as a whole is a description, which is why the root element is <description>. However, a case could be made for regarding each nested element, e.g. <interface>, <binding>, <service>, as the definition of a component. So a description is a collection of definitions. What do you think? Arthur Ryman, IBM Software Group, Rational Division blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ 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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 10/11/2006 12:25 AM To www-ws-desc@w3.org cc Subject Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions Hi, I suggest a minor editorial change to the Part 1 [Core Language] regarding the usage of the terms "WSDL 2.0 definitions" and "WSDL 2.0 descriptions". Quoting snippet from Section 2.1.2 [WSDL 2.0 definitions are represented in XML by one or more WSDL 2.0 Information Sets (Infosets), that is one or more description element information items] Quoting snippet from Section 4.2.1 [ Its actual value indicates that the containing WSDL 2.0 document MAY contain qualified references to WSDL 2.0 definitions in that namespace ] These could be changed to WSDL 2.0 "descriptions" from "definitions" - ensures consistent terminology. HTH, rgds, Ram -- Shift to the left, shift to the right! Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte! -Ramkumar Menon A typical Macroprocessor -- Shift to the left, shift to the right! Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte! -Ramkumar Menon A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 18:55:31 UTC