- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 25 Nov 2002 12:26:15 -0600
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Stuart, Tim, Ian, and everybody, This might be just a request to tweak the agenda/issues list at this point; but eventually we need to do a real round-trip between the TAG and the WSDL WG on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 "At the moment, the only observed place where this is biting is in XML Schema." -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/24-tag-summary#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Well, that's no longer the case, as we observed in recent discussion... "do: wsdl havea requireent to identify the elements that are semantically interesting." -- 2.3 RDDL, namespaceDocument-8 http://www.w3.org/2002/11/18-tag-summary#RDDL that requirement is... "R120 The description language MUST ensure that all conceptual elements in the description of Messages are addressable by a URI reference" -- http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/ We went on to discuss interactions between namespace documents, RDDL, RDF, WSDL, mime types, etc. There's a WSDL scenario (or 2 or 3) that we sorta discussed... the minutes aren't very clear, but that's an accurate record of the meeting. I hope somebody from the WSDL WG will join this discussion and lay out the scenario(s) clearly. Or maybe I'll find time to do it. But right now, I just want to be sure the connection doesn't get lost. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 13:26:14 UTC