- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:37:03 -0500
- To: <jdart@tibco.com>, "'Mayilraj Krishnan'" <mkrishna@cisco.com>
- Cc: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'Patil Sanjaykumar'" <sanjay.patil@iona.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Jon: It would be nice even if these bindings are not part of the spec, that the spec is layered in such a way that these bindings can be added via extensibility mechanisms. JJ- >>-----Original Message----- >>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] >>On Behalf Of Jon Dart >>Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:04 PM >>To: Mayilraj Krishnan >>Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Patil Sanjaykumar; public-ws-chor@w3.org >>Subject: Re: [Requirements] Non-requirement for MEPs >> >> >>Mayilraj Krishnan wrote: >>> >>> I don' t think anybody suggesting not to use WSDL. There were >>> suggestions to define the business message exchanges >>> or business signals which could be mapped to basic MEPs.. >> >>Actually I think some participants were considering whether something >>like ebXML interactions could be modelled in WS-Choreography - they have >>their own metadata, it isn't WSDL. RosettaNet is another example. Maybe >>it's out of scope, but if you emphasize the "choreography" part of the >>definition and take a liberal view of what "web serivces" could mean, >>then this might make sense. >> >>--Jon >>
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 16:49:39 UTC