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

RE: [Requirements] Non-requirement for MEPs

From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:37:03 -0500
To: <jdart@tibco.com>, "'Mayilraj Krishnan'" <mkrishna@cisco.com>
Cc: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'Patil Sanjaykumar'" <sanjay.patil@iona.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009201c2ed96$96e0afe0$0502a8c0@JJD>

Jon:

It would be nice even if these bindings are not part of the spec, that
the spec is layered in such a way that these bindings can be added via
extensibility mechanisms. 

JJ-
 
 

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]
>>On Behalf Of Jon Dart
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:04 PM
>>To: Mayilraj Krishnan
>>Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Patil Sanjaykumar; public-ws-chor@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: [Requirements] Non-requirement for MEPs
>>
>>
>>Mayilraj Krishnan wrote:
>>>
>>> I don' t think anybody suggesting not to use WSDL. There were
>>> suggestions to define the business message exchanges
>>> or business signals which could be mapped to basic MEPs..
>>
>>Actually I think some participants were considering whether something
>>like ebXML interactions could be modelled in WS-Choreography - they
have
>>their own metadata, it isn't WSDL. RosettaNet is another example.
Maybe
>>it's out of scope, but if you emphasize the "choreography" part of the
>>definition and take a liberal view of what "web serivces" could mean,
>>then this might make sense.
>>
>>--Jon
>>
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 16:49:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:06 GMT