- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:54:25 +0100
- To: "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "David Snelling" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "Paul Watson" <Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3c.org>, <public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org>, "Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>
> > > What is the concern with defining an interface that contains those > operations? If the service wishes to provide "standard" operations on the > attributes, then that service would include that interface in its set of > supported interfaces. If it chooses not to include that interface, then > the > requestor is clear that the attributes are not accessible. > I feel that this as an application domain specific requirement and not a requirement for an interface/protocol description language. I see WSDL as the enabling tool for describing interfaces or protocols. Defining a set of particular operations/attributes as prerequisites (or even optional) should not be the responsibility of the language but rather the particular application domain (through an appropriate specification that uses the language). .savas.
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 18:54:33 UTC