- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:22:45 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-ws@w3.org
A few weeks ago I read WSDL [1] in preparation for the workshop but failed to send my comments anywhere. So now I'll correct that situation with the result that my comments are very brief/general. As a newbie, I found some of the terminology and construction of WSDL difficult to understand. On the terminology side, I had to keep returning to section 2.1/2.4/2.6 to try to grok what a type, binding, message, service, and particularly port/port-type were. When looking at the architecture and examples, I made a little breakthrough in reading the structure backwards. The structure is one of progressive construction, starting with types, messages, and building up to a service. I understood it much better by progressive deconstruction, starting with the service and breaking it down. One could argue that this is a syntactical/editorial issue, but I suppose the related architectural question is what requirements necessitate so much indirection? A little nesting could go a long way, and if you want to reuse something, then you can have a reference if necessary (schema is actually nice in this way: you nest your structures with a reference if necessary.). [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl __ Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 13:23:14 UTC