RE: Feedback on Glossary

Assav wrote:

> >>WSDL interface defines some of the expected behavior of a 
> >>service type 
> >>and WS-Chor defines other part of that behavior. WSDL can 
> >>also define an 
> >>interface beloning to that type by associating it with the 
> interface. 
> >>However, somewhere along the actual concept of service type 
> >>managed to 
> >>escape and I think we need to introduce it in more generic 
> terms than 
> >>the particular type of WSDL definition used to capture its behavior.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >[fac] Is your intent to attach some additional semantics to a service
> >type?  If not, what will distinguish one service type from 
> another if not
> >the WSDL and choreography?
> >  
> >
> If you think about it, WSDL is just a type definition language for 
> services. It defines generic types (interfaces) and actual 
> instances of 
> these types (services). I can say that some choreography can use any 
> service that implements interface X, or simply that it can use any 
> service of that type. So service type is just a more generic 
> term and a 
> WSDL interface is just part of the definition of that type.
> 
> The only need to generalize this concept a bit is by allow different 
> defintions of the service type to exist without naming this 
> particular 
> definitions.
> 
This seems like a rather imprecise definition.  How do you 
expect to use "service type?"  If it is used within a choreography
specification, I would expect it to refer to a WSDL interface, or
something more specific, such as a real estate seller using a 
seller interface.

Fred

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 23:48:30 UTC