W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

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

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:26:03 -0500
To: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: distobj@acm.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040223112603.69b2ff22.alewis@tibco.com>

Enthusiastically +1.  WSDL describes messages, and groups them into
soi-distant exchanges of messages (so if you send something, you've got
an idea what you'll get back).

In the http and soap over http bindings, there's already a method (post
or get).

Amy!
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:13:45 +0000
Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 11:28:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC