- From: Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:02:34 -0600
- To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Assaf Arkin wrote: > > <<Monica J. Martin wrote: > >> mm1: I would say that the WSDL MAY be legally binding, but it is not >> the contract. > > > I'm not sure if we can go far without agreeing that WSDL is a > contract, or binding agreement, between two parties, in our case > services. If it's not a binding agreement, why even bother using it? mm1: It is an expression that can reference back to an agreement. I would ask: (1) Is it appropriate that WSDL be an expression of a binding agreement or optionally designated as legally binding or not, and/or (2) Is it appropriate that the WSDL point to the overriding agreement associated with the context the agreement provides for the expression? > > It's a contract in the sense that it binds two parties to do something > in a very specific way. It is not by itself a legal contract, rather > it's an "efficient" contract. An efficient contract that specifies all > that is material to that particular binding agreement. The majority of > contracts fall into that category. The price sticker on a product is > an efficient contract, a binding agreement to sell the product at that > price. Similarly for a coupon you cut out of a newspaper or a > sweepstake code you find in a bottle cap, etc. mm1: See first response. > > I know people would object to this notion since WSDL does not have > "the receiver party and sender party agree to..." verbiage we tend to > equate with contracts, but it really boils down to whether it says > anything that can be considered a binding agreement in a particular > context. Has anyone asked a lawyer to see what they would say? mm1: Let's separate the fact that there is a contract, that it is binding and whether than binding is attached to the WSDL (as well as to the execution later....). > > arkin >>
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 17:53:19 UTC