W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2003

RE: What WSDL defines - the diagram!

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:31:00 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1D2C@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
i thought the 'protocol' was described by the binding  and MEP being used 
- but i guess that would mean we could start to debate what 'protocol' actually means :-)
there does come a point when you're so losely coupled, you're not actually coupled at all..

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
	Sent: Tue 04/11/2003 15:41 
	To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C 
	Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: What WSDL defines - the diagram!

	Cool, thanks for tackling that at the f2f.
	But I disagree with the diagram.  As it was explained to me, a WSDL 2.0
	document could be said to "describe the syntax" of client and service
	("schema in, schema out"), rather than "define the behaviour", which
	would require defining what in/out means in relation to any requested
	semantics (aka the protocol).
	WSDL 1.1 describes the protocol in that it suggests that a successful
	response to a message means that the requested operation in the message
	was successfully invoked.  WSDL 2.0 is ambiguous.
	Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca


Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2003 11:33:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:45 UTC