- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:42:58 +0100
- To: "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>, "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
Jeff, [snip] > This really is very simple and straightforward. Don't keep trying to > complicate it by bringing in other definitions of what attributes may or > may not be or mean. > I completely agree with what you said in both of your messages. We have the same understanding of what the keyword "attribute" means in IDL. However, I feel that I need to explain what I mean when I talk about "specific operations". The entire conversation started when I suggested that, as in the IDL specification, the WSDL specification cannot mandate the existence of specific operations (i.e., explicit signatures for methods and/or attributes). This task force is to contribute a section in the WSDL specification and as such it can only talk about the syntax on how to write interfaces and not the existence of a number of specific operations in all defined interfaces. In OGSI, there are three operations defined: setServiceDAta, getServiceData, findServiceData. It was my understanding that the intention was to define such operations in WSDL. That's what I objected to. I mentioned IDL as an example because IDL says nothing about specific operations. I did not say that the keyword "attribute" does not suggest the existence of an appropriate mechanism for get/set in the target language. Just that the IDL specification does not mandate the existence of particular operations with predefined semantics, like "list findAttributeByName(string)" for example. .savas.
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 03:43:15 UTC