- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:16:15 -0500
- To: retsxob123 <cutlip@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
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