W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:07:17 -0700
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1ABF@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Cc: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org

I actually think that we should try and use WSDL interfaces, but we need to
check that it does what we need it to do. The specific problem is the
requirement for the WSDL interface to accept abstract message types, for
example an order, without specifying exactly which format of an order it
will accept as they can vary.

I suppose that really I need to do more work myself looking at the latest
WSDL specs on this.


-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:52 AM
To: Steve Ross-Talbot
Cc: Jean-Jacques Dubray; 'Burdett, David'; Daniel_Austin@grainger.com;
Subject: Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement

Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:

> I have made this WSDL non-WSDL a topic for discussion at the call 
> later  today.
> I'd like to get a summary of the views expressed so far ... any  
> volunteers?
> Cheers
> Steve T

Here's a list of what I've heard so far. I've tried my best to express 
the view as briefly and broadly as possible, so people who support one 
or more views can elaborate more. Listed from least to most likely to 
focuse solely on WSDL:

1. We need to define choreographies in abstract terms. Use of WSDL is an 
implementation detail.

2. We need to define abstract choreographies with bindings to multiple 
technologies, including but not limited to WSDL.

3. Using WSDL prevents us from supporting other specifications that 
address RM, security, transactions, etc.

4. You can't write a good choreography language using WSDL, but you can 
bind a good choreography to WSDL.

5. The interesting capabilities are already supported by WSDL and 
specifications that extend WSDL.

6. Being a W3C WG implies ...

Feel free to add, remove, expand, donate 2 cents, etc ...

I want to add one request for clarification. I did that a few times 
before, I hope a few people would be willing to take on it this time.

WSDL encapsulates two layers within the same specification that 
personally I would have liked to see written as two different parts of 
the same specification for better clarity (similar to the two parts in 

One layer deals with abstract service types as defined by their 
interface implying what the service looks like but not any particular 
service. The other layer deals with actual services as defined by their 
end-points, protocol binding and the interface they support.

Someone may say "I don't like the specification to refer to WSDL 
services" and someone else may say "I like the specification to refer to 
WSDL interfaces". These two points of view are not contradictory in any 
way. However they do become contradictory if we don't specify what part 
of WSDL we refer to.

So if anyone has an opinion for or against WSDL, can you please clarify 
whether you refer to the WSDL services, WSDL interfaces or WSDL whole. I 
think that alone would bring a bit more agreement into the discussion.

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 13:06:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:04 UTC