W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Feedback on Glossary

From: Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:02:16 -0600
Message-ID: <3EA61E58.2070504@sun.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:58 UTC