RE: CDL Challenge

>>>You can reference the semantics and standard formats that already do exist, however.<<<

I totally agree, there is no point in reinventing the wheel. For the semantics of specific messages we should just reference existing semantics where suitable ones exist.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:39 AM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: opensource@toolsmiths.se; public-ws-chor@w3.org;
steve@enigmatec.net; distobj@acm.org
Subject: Re: CDL Challenge


david.burdett@commerceone.com wrote:

>Anders
>
>*If* we do decide to define signals, I think we should just define: a) its semantics, b) a standard message type and c) standard states to correspond with the receipt (or not) of of the signals. I don't think we should define a standard representation for the signals as this can vary.
>
>David
>  
>
mm1: You can reference the semantics and standard formats that already 
do exist, however. Thanks.

Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 11:20:20 UTC