Re: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]

Actually I would phrase it a little differently:

1. It has sometimes been proposed that we not require a WSDL + XML 
Schema definition of messages.

2. It has sometimes been proposed that we remove WSDL definitions out of 
the choreography flow itself, into another layer.

There are partially independent: 1. implies 2., but 2. doesn't imply 1. 
  I.e. there are advantages (I believe) in not directly having WSDL 
definitions in the choreography flow, even if you will assume that WSDL 
exists at another layer.

--Jon

Martin Chapman wrote:
> I can extract two issues from this thread
> 1. should we use XML/WSDL or use/invent an abstraction layer above
> 2. What features of a language are required in order to be able to
> define
> abstract and concrete message types.
> 
> It is definitely worth separating these issues!
> 
> Martin.
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber
>>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 8:55 AM
>>To: jdart@tibco.com; 'Furniss Peter'
>>Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]
>>
>>
>>
>>Jon:
>>
>>
>>>In that case, it would appear there is no harm in assuming,
>>>within the 
>>>scope of WS-Choroegraphy, that there is a WSDL + XML Schema 
>>>representation of ASN.1.
>>
>>I am in complete agreement on that: WSDL is the right 
>>language in the context of Web services for describing 
>>protocols, and I hope this group sees things that way too. 
>>And it doesn't exclude the possibility of developing 
>>"abstract-plus-binding" schemes either.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 13:31:57 UTC