RE: WSDL Debate Continued..

NOW you're talking!  Get a few people together, put fingers to keyboard
and hammer out a proposed spec and usage scenarios.

Hey kids, let have a show!  We can use the old barn ... 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:16 AM
To: retsxob123
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: WSDL Debate Continued..


Small point: There is no WSDL debate in any meaningful sense. We've been
trolled (as Drew's post makes evident). Sorry for making it seem
otherwise.

Frankly, just the nature of the W3C makes it nigh impossible to
seriously depart from WSDL without an overwhelming rationale obviously
convincing to all. I'm hard pressed to imagine what that could even
been.

Given that *three* recent WS submissions (transfer, eventing, and
enumeration) all build/rely on WSDL (and Addressing, which is connected
to WSDL), suggests that, at least at the moment, enhancing WSDL is the
way to enrich WS descriptions. So that's how we'll go.

(Where are the SWS-* specs? Let's start with preconditions and
effects...my personal favorite. Isn't that hard! Or non-functional
properties. Dublin core anyone? Again easy. We don't need a working
group to make a proposal! Anyone interested? (Also, don't focus on the
RDF mapping...focus on the normal WSDL (*provide* an extended mapping,
natch).)

(This is one reason I don't think WSDL-S gets us much. We don't need
*hooks* we need substantive content. WSDL is hooky enough.)

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 16:39:58 UTC