- From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:16:05 +0000
- To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
At 17:26 09/02/2004 -0800, David Martin wrote:
>Here's an initial strawman proposal for this new construct, which
>indicates the use of a Web service that's defined elsewhere. It's
>syntactically about the same as the "invoke" construct proposed earlier --
>but it doesn't carry the same implications about what's going to happen where.
>
>We've been calling one of these things a "Reference" in conversations, but
>to me that's not really very helpful, so I'm proposing "Use". Other
>suggestions are welcome. ("Employ", "enact", "execute", "do", "run",
>"apply" ?)
We are really talking about a more abstract specification of a process as
opposed to something that can be directly invoked with some known protocol
I assume.
PIF work (which was the basis for the core of NIST PSL) used a term
"perform" for an activity if that is useful. It may be sufficiently far
from the lower level direct "invoke" (invocation of a service) to be helpful?
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 05:15:19 UTC