Re: write-up of interaction patterns

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>But I thought we all agreed at some F2F that WSDL was always
>describing the server's perspective. If that agreement still
>holds then the "what node am I" issue is not there .. the WSDL
>description of the MEP always takes the role of the "server"
>of the MEP.
>
We had this kinf of discussion during the f2f. We agreed on describing 
the service's perspective, not the server's perspective.
Some interactions of a service can be implemented with the service being 
(at the protocol layer) either a client or a server.
  Youenn

>
>Sanjiva.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
>Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:06 AM
>Subject: Re: write-up of interaction patterns
>
>
>  
>
>>Either syntax is fine with me, as long as we can carry the
>>information described by Glen below.
>>
>>Jean-Jacques.
>>
>>Glen Daniels wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>When you lay this into WSDL, I think you need both "what node am I" and
>>>      
>>>
>"what
>  
>
>>>messages in the WSDL correspond to what messages in the MEP description.
>>>      
>>>
>An
>  
>
>>>example of this would be as follows (using my preferred syntax, natch
>>>      
>>>
>:)):
>  
>
>>><operation mep="request-response-uri" role="node-B-uri">
>>>  <input message="someMessage" role="Request"/>
>>>  <output message="otherMessage" role="Response"/>
>>></operation>
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>