RE: Long owed Description stack words

Sorry this e-mail was dsitributed three times [due to W3C mail
server problem which evidently has now been fixed...].

-----Original Message-----
From: Ahmed, Zahid [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 11:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 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 the 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