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

Re: On WSDL "operation"

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:18:24 -0400
Cc: "'WS Description List'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Message-Id: <A1EFA8B4-E850-11D7-9424-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>

On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 09:39  AM, Champion, Mike wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Webber [mailto:jim.webber@arjuna.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:52 AM
>> To: 'Mark Baker'; 'Umit Yalcinalp'
>> Cc: 'WS Description List'
>> Subject: RE: On WSDL "operation"
>> It could be as simple as re-naming "operation" to something
>> like "messageExchange."
> Yeah, but a WSDL "operation" presumably DOES something.  It's not just 
> a
> message for the sake of sending bits around.  How about 
> "serviceInvocation"
> or "serviceRequest" or something along those lines? If a WSDL message 
> does
> anything, it does request that a service be performed by the provider 
> on
> behalf of the requester [the current WSA terminology, IIRC].

In DAML-S, the thing roughly corresponding to a WSDL operation is 
modeled as an AtomicProcess. Hmm. I'm not sure that's quite right, but 
I suppose the idea is clear enough.

The slightly different perspectives seem to revolve around whether you 
are primarily concerned with the *form* of the interaction (i.e., 
message exhange) or the *thing* interacted with (the process), with the 
latter being mostly concerned with the *accomplishment*/invocation/what 
have you.

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:15:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:44 UTC