W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues

From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:03:14 -0500
To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
Message-ID: <002c01c3d611$b0dae730$d1bd0280@scs.ad.cs.cmu.edu>

 I think the issue of "different WSDL documents describing the same service"
should be flagged in our document.
 I would also like to see some additional issues relating to semantics in
there (but for now this is a half baked thought)


-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:12 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:18 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues

>  What else is 
> there?  Can anyone propose (or point to) a clear, 1-paragraph 
> or so description of the issue and resolution options for any 
> of these?

Hmm, I wonder if the infamous "what happens when different WSDL documents
define the same service" is in this category of issues, or is really in
WSD's capable hands to sort out?  Some of the recent postings (especially by
David Booth) make me wonder if we shouldn't flag these as issues that
transcend the spec itself and get into the meta-architectural realm. There
are clearly implications for management and discovery here that WSD probably
doesn't want to get dragged into, and we won't be around to keep reminding
people about.

Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 13:04:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:10 UTC