RE: 2004-02-12 Action Item: Clarification to the OperationName feature

Mark:

> Ah, right, it's that one again. 8-)

Indeed it is.
 
> But as I think I must have said before, you seem to be trying 
> to make WSDL be something that it isn't.  That may or may not 
> be a good thing to do, but every use of WSDL I've seen uses 
> it describe application interfaces, so that's where my 
> comments are coming from.

I'm not trying to make WSDL anything else, it already is a message
description langauge. Some people like to think that it describes this
mythical application, but I see no justifcation for that. The
"application" that receives a message described in WSDL might be a human
reading a fax. How does that tie in with an operation?

I guess it all depends on your view point. Some people see web services
as a point-to-point means of joining my thing to your thing  (with
application-specific semantics permeating the network layer). I see it
as a canonical messaging platform for joining anything to everything
(minus any baggage from the application layer). 

Jim