- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:04:12 +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>
> > If we left the operatoins to access attributes up to myriad application > domains, there would be no consistency and therefore poor > interoperability. > > Think of the analogy to SQL. If SQL defined Data Definition Language but > left the Query language to be application specific, data access would be a > mess. > Yes, but the SQL specification does not provide a set of queries that must or could be supported for interoperability. The same with WSDL. It's a language. The specification should say what an attribute is, how to associate it with a message, what its attributes are, and so on. The specification should not say that a number of operations (like getAttribute(), setAttribute(), queryAttributes(), etc.) must or should exist. It's the same with IDL. The language provides you with the means to specify methods and attributes. The language says nothing about the methods that you must have in order to access those attributes. If an interoperable way to providing some specific functionality that relates to attributes is required, then another specification is necessary. OGSI is such a specification for the Grid application domain. If adoption of a set of common operations that operate on attributes would be useful, then I can see another WS-* spec. .savas.
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 04:04:29 UTC