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

Re: What does WSDL describe?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:05:13 +0600
Message-ID: <0c8601c39dc1$1f0ef9f0$36356a20@lankabook2>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
Cc: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

*2 to Jeffrey's -1 (I was going to say +1 but then that could be
misunderstood as negating (positivating?) Jeffrey's -1 ;-)).

I'm going to make a motion at the next call that the WG establish
a principle of "just say no" to the <operation> renaming proposals.
Semantic disambuigity is not fixed by renaming - the fact that
people think that the "problem" is the name shows that nothing is
really broken .. just that some people don't like some of the names
chosen. Neither do I, but the pragmatist in me says some names are
here to stay.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>; "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
Cc: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>; "Anne Thomas
Manes" <anne@manes.net>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:37 AM
Subject: RE: What does WSDL describe?


>
> -1
>
> 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 Tuesday, 28 October 2003 21:03:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT