RE: Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions

Sounds editorial to me.
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Thu 12-Oct-06 4:55
To: Ramkumar Menon
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



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 <mailto: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/ <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 <mailto:4169395063@fido.ca>  


"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com <mailto:ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> > 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org <mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>  

10/11/2006 12:25 AM 



To
www-ws-desc@w3.org <mailto: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