Re: message formats and bindings (was MEPs).

This sounds like a pragmatic and reasonnbale approach to me.

Jean-Jacques.

Burdett, David wrote:
> 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 Thursday, 20 March 2003 07:58:53 UTC