RE: message formats and bindings (was MEPs).

I agree. I think there should be:
a) an abstract definition of a choreography that is independent of SOAP and
WSDL, AND 
b) a binding of the choreography specification to SOAP and WSDL.

This will also make it easier to evolve the choreography specs as SOAP and
WSDL change and evolve - you just produce a new binding. If others want to
bindings, e.g. for ebXML or RosettaNet then they can.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:01 PM
To: Jean-Jacques Dubray
Cc: 'Mayilraj Krishnan'; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; 'Patil Sanjaykumar';
public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: message formats and bindings (was MEPs).



Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:
> 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. 

I wasn't suggesting (nor was anyone, I think) that ebXML or RosettaNet 
bindings be included. But if you take a sufficiently abstract approach 
to specifying message exchange, and avoid restricting message contents 
to SOAP (for example), then using WS-Choreography with a variety of 
message formats would be possible. Cf. David Burdett's message asking 
for "detailed message format independence"
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Mar/0084.html).
Although I am not sure he was envisioning things like ebXML signals.

--Jon

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 09:34:00 UTC