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

RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:26:19 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9032B8B5B@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I think there are two separate issues here:

1- using the operation name to label message exchanges so that the
server can distinguish them for some purpose (e.g. dispatching)

2- using the operation name to carry semantic information about the
message exchange

I think that 1 can be done (but I don't believe it must always be done -
and there might be best practice reasons for not doing it). 

On the other hand, I don't think that 2 can be done in any reliable way.
This sounds similar to the old claim that an XML document, by itself, is
self descriptive, because of the nice English names used in the tags
(just try to write them in Japanese and see how much self descriptive
they are, unless you are from Japan ...).

Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 14:27:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:49 UTC