- From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:39:57 -0800
- To: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Austin Tate wrote:
> At 17:26 09/02/2004 -0800, David Martin wrote:
>
>> Here's an initial strawman proposal for this new construct, which
>> indicates the use of a Web service that's defined elsewhere. It's
>> syntactically about the same as the "invoke" construct proposed
>> earlier -- but it doesn't carry the same implications about what's
>> going to happen where.
>>
>> We've been calling one of these things a "Reference" in conversations,
>> but to me that's not really very helpful, so I'm proposing "Use".
>> Other suggestions are welcome. ("Employ", "enact", "execute", "do",
>> "run", "apply" ?)
>
>
>
> We are really talking about a more abstract specification of a process
> as opposed to something that can be directly invoked with some known
> protocol I assume.
>
> PIF work (which was the basis for the core of NIST PSL) used a term
> "perform" for an activity if that is useful. It may be sufficiently far
> from the lower level direct "invoke" (invocation of a service) to be
> helpful?
I like it!
Thanks,
David
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 10:40:27 UTC