- From: Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:02:16 -0600
- To: "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>
- CC: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
I would suggest these initial set of definition comments confirms that we should have a very basic set of core glossary terms first. As we define our requirements and context we will have a better idea what further definitions are appropriate and what they actually entail. I'll take these initial comments and try to represent them in the document, concentrating on a discrete set for first round, and label the others as future consideration. Simple 'correlation': red is scarlet is blood is wine is rose...well. Monica Cummins, Fred A wrote: >Assav wrote: > > > >>>>WSDL interface defines some of the expected behavior of a >>>>service type >>>>and WS-Chor defines other part of that behavior. WSDL can >>>>also define an >>>>interface beloning to that type by associating it with the >>>> >>>> >>interface. >> >> >>>>However, somewhere along the actual concept of service type >>>>managed to >>>>escape and I think we need to introduce it in more generic >>>> >>>> >>terms than >> >> >>>>the particular type of WSDL definition used to capture its behavior. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>[fac] Is your intent to attach some additional semantics to a service >>>type? If not, what will distinguish one service type from >>> >>> >>another if not >> >> >>>the WSDL and choreography? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>If you think about it, WSDL is just a type definition language for >>services. It defines generic types (interfaces) and actual >>instances of >>these types (services). I can say that some choreography can use any >>service that implements interface X, or simply that it can use any >>service of that type. So service type is just a more generic >>term and a >>WSDL interface is just part of the definition of that type. >> >>The only need to generalize this concept a bit is by allow different >>defintions of the service type to exist without naming this >>particular >>definitions. >> >> >> >This seems like a rather imprecise definition. How do you >expect to use "service type?" If it is used within a choreography >specification, I would expect it to refer to a WSDL interface, or >something more specific, such as a real estate seller using a >seller interface. > >Fred > > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 00:55:34 UTC