W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-state@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Some requirements

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:04:12 +0100
Message-ID: <BC28A9E979C56C44BCBC2DED313A447001D752FD@bond.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "David Snelling" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "Paul Watson" <Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3c.org>, <public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org>, "Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>

> 
> If we left the operatoins to access attributes up to myriad
application
> domains, there would be no consistency and therefore poor
> interoperability.
> 
> Think of the analogy to SQL.  If SQL defined Data Definition Language
but
> left the Query language to be application specific, data access would
be a
> mess.
> 

Yes, but the SQL specification does not provide a set of queries that
must or could be supported for interoperability.

The same with WSDL. It's a language. The specification should say what
an attribute is, how to associate it with a message, what its attributes
are, and so on. The specification should not say that a number of
operations (like getAttribute(), setAttribute(), queryAttributes(),
etc.) must or should exist.

It's the same with IDL. The language provides you with the means to
specify methods and attributes. The language says nothing about the
methods that you must have in order to access those attributes.

If an interoperable way to providing some specific functionality that
relates to attributes is required, then another specification is
necessary. OGSI is such a specification for the Grid application domain.
If adoption of a set of common operations that operate on attributes
would be useful, then I can see another WS-* spec.

.savas.

 
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 04:04:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:54 UTC