RE: What does WSDL describe?

Absolutely spot on Jeff. Let's stick to messages here and all the other
stuff can then be neatly factored on top.

Jim

> WSDL needs to focus on describing messages received by / sent 
> from a service. Any normative differences between an 
> 'interactions/exchange'
> and 'interface/operation' would be a commitment to model.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Mark Baker
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:21 AM
> > To: Jim Webber
> > Cc: 'Savas Parastatidis'; 'Anne Thomas Manes'; www-ws-desc@w3.org; 
> > distobj@acm.org
> > Subject: Re: What does WSDL describe?
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 04:10:09PM -0000, Jim Webber wrote:
> > > Savas:
> > >
> > > > <interactions>
> > > >   <exchange>
> > > >     <input message="" />
> > > >   </exchange>
> > > >   <exchange>
> > > >     <input message="" />
> > > >     <output message="" />
> > > >   </exchange>
> > > > <interactions>
> > > >
> > > > Yet something else to consider :-)
> > >
> > > I like it. It is short (Anne's concern), and captures 
> what a service
> > does
> > > (exchanges messages). It is unambiguous too since it does 
> not imply
> any
> > > semantics like certain other keywords do :-)
> > 
> > What about supporting both "operation" and "exchange", as they mean 
> > different things, and it seems that folks want both.
> > 
> > "exchange", as I understand what Savas means by it, would 
> be used for 
> > what I call "state transfer".  But when there is an operation in
> effect,
> > "operation" would be used.
> > 
> > This would mostly address my issue, in fact, as by using one or the 
> > other, a WSDL document would be resolving the previous ambiguity I 
> > discussed.
> > 
> > Mark.
> > --
> > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        
> http://www.markbaker.ca
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 12:09:52 UTC