RE: Long owed Description stack words

In Heather's draft of the description stack, it is stated
that:
>This service interface definition would define WSDL type(s),
>message(s), portType(s) and binding(s).

Issue:
Should we move the binding description to WSDL implementation
document, i.e., be part of the concrete description of WSDL 
document rather than abstract?

My understanding is that abstract definition part of a
WSDL document does not need to include a binding description
component, instead it includes types, messages, and
portTypes only.

However, WSDL implementation documents, which could import
such interface/abstract WSDL descriptions, will contain binding
description and service description.

This is in conflict with your classification of WSDL
interface and implementation documents (both in text and
in diagram #4).

Lastly, is this description stack in sync of WSDL 1.2
or just WSDL 1.1?

thanks,
Zahid



-----Original Message-----
From: Heather Kreger [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Long owed Description stack words 






Here is a draft of some description stack words, I hope they are in time
for the editors to incorporate before the F2F.

(See attached file: HKsContribution.description.htm)

here are the diagrams
(See attached file: descriptionstack.zip)

sorry about the attachment

Heather Kreger
Web Services Lead Architect
STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
[email protected]
919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572