- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 22:09:06 -0600
- To: david.burdett@commerceone.com
- Cc: UCorda@SeeBeyond.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
david.burdett@commerceone.com wrote: >Ugo > >This is odd. I see a small problem with a simple solution where I think that others see a complex one. > >Firstly, I am **not** suggesting that WS-CDL defines how you can automatically determine that two WSDL definitions are semantically equivalent as I agree it is fraught with problems. > >What I am suggesting instead is that people determine that WSDL definitions are semantically eqiuvalent. Here's an example ... > >I see a world where: >a) People agree, for want of a better word, a pattern for exchanging messages, where the messages are identified at an abstract level, i.e. without reference to any WSDL definitions >b) Later, people map end points in those patterns to their own previously existing WSDL definitions, or use the WS-CDL definition to define skeleton WSDL definitions from which they can then create the necessary code. >c) Once the systems are built and connected, the same people use the WS-CDL definitions to automatically check that messages are being exchanged in the correct sequence. > >Is there anything wrong with this scenario? > > mm1: Other than it brings into question our basis premises regarding WSDL, not much other than it is recreating the wheel for technology capabilities that already exist. >David >
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 00:09:13 UTC