W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2003

RE: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:32:40 -0800
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <jones@research.att.com>, "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02bb01c2c981$0c85e1a0$4b0ba8c0@beasys.com>

> That's it.  I think it's a reasonable model.  I think WSDL
> can model it.
> Indeed, I think WSDL needs sooner or later to support this model for
> non-attachment data.  Applying it to attachments is just more
> metadata, I
> think (this URI will refer to a resource that travels with
> the message,
> this one won't, and this third one could be either way.)
>

This is part of the problem, imo.  What the WSDL modelling is should be
known rather than supposed.  If it turns out that WSD modelling is quite
onerous, than that doesn't meet the simplicity requirement.

I fully expect that any solution will also address WSD modelling.

I also expect that part of the trade-off on solution selection will include
how the WSDL modeling differs, with preference for simpler.  To me, a key
requirement is "simple WSDL modelling".

Each and any solution is a trade-off on requirements - including the web
btw - and should take into account relevent requirements.  WSD modelling is
a relevent requirement.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 18:34:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:13 GMT