Re: [wsrp-wsia] e-Mail Vote on Issue #59 (refined)

I have attached a compilation of the email votes cast. If I captured your
vote incorrectly, please inform me with a pointer at your email. Perhaps
Steven can reflect this into our next minutes as well. The final tally:

Issue #59 (refined) - Keep the wsdlURL field in ServiceDescription?
  7 - Yes
 22 - No
   1 - Abstain

(See attached file: Issue59Vote.doc)



                                                                                                                   
                      Thomas Schaeck                                                                               
                      <.c        To:                                   
                      om>                      cc:                                                                 
                                               Subject:  [wsrp-wsia] e-Mail Vote on Issue #59 (refined)            
                      11/15/2002 11:40                                                                             
                      AM                                                                                           
                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                   





Dear WSRP and WSIA TC Members,

I put up the following issue for an e-mail vote (ending 1 week after this
notice goes out) - the following summarizes the discussion for this issue
(thanks Rich !)

Issue #59 (refined) - Keep the wsdlURL field in ServiceDescription?

Arguments in favor:
 - If this was an infrastructural portType (has that flavor), this would be
THE required field.
 - This provides a standardized place to produce a dynamic WSDL that
reflects the Consumer's registration.

Arguments against:
 - Since we are above the infrastructural level, this information has to be
already known in order to invoke getServiceDescription().
 - If the infrastructural level provides such information in the future, it
will be redundant and likely incompatible
 - Not critical for v1.0 ... can be an extension for those wishing to
provide the dynamic WSDL concept.
 - Assumes the signature will not change for future versions of the spec.
 - Belongs as part of the discovery process rather than as part of the
service.

Best regards,

Thomas

Thomas Schaeck
Chairman OASIS WSRP TC



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>