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

Re: On WSDL "operation"

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:35:37 +0600
Message-ID: <030701c3869f$56a43530$72545ecb@lankabook2>
To: "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'WS Description List'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com> writes:
>
> So in short:
>
> 1. Web Services exchange messages.

Yes.

> 2. WSDL describes those messages (and perhaps how they might be
exchanged).
> This includes both abstract and concrete forms of those messages.

Yes. Plus, with WSDL 1.2, when the messages are carried over SOAP
abstract and concrete forms are precisely the same.

> 3. All the other stuff is out of scope (and indeed only makes sense when
> there is an application to resolve what it means).

Yes.

> I believe WSDL can do this, it's just that with nouns like "operation" we
> implicitly suggest to developers that WSDL is an IDL, when it isn't, it's
a
> CDL.

Its an IDL in my book, plus the ability to describe how/where that
interface is available (service+binding stuff). I don't see why
the use of the word "operation" instead of "message exchange" makes
it a CDL and not an IDL. Oh BTW, what's a CDL?

The WG has taken the decision (repeatedly, IIRC) to stay with the
term "operation" to describe a message exchange. So the discussion
on the name is no longer productive.

Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 11:36:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT