Re: WSDL Debate Continued..

Small point: There is no WSDL debate in any meaningful sense. We've 
been trolled (as Drew's post makes evident). Sorry for making it seem 
otherwise.

Frankly, just the nature of the W3C makes it nigh impossible to 
seriously depart from WSDL without an overwhelming rationale obviously 
convincing to all. I'm hard pressed to imagine what that could even 
been.

Given that *three* recent WS submissions (transfer, eventing, and 
enumeration) all build/rely on WSDL (and Addressing, which is connected 
to WSDL), suggests that, at least at the moment, enhancing WSDL is the 
way to enrich WS descriptions. So that's how we'll go.

(Where are the SWS-* specs? Let's start with preconditions and 
effects...my personal favorite. Isn't that hard! Or non-functional 
properties. Dublin core anyone? Again easy. We don't need a working 
group to make a proposal! Anyone interested? (Also, don't focus on the 
RDF mapping...focus on the normal WSDL (*provide* an extended mapping, 
natch).)

(This is one reason I don't think WSDL-S gets us much. We don't need 
*hooks* we need substantive content. WSDL is hooky enough.)

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 14:16:20 UTC