RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion

Ugo,

May be so. If it is defined in AC009, I am interested in knowing how AC009
helps in explicit definition of service behavior + the requirement below.

Cheers,

-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   



-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 5:16 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion


Suresh,
Isn't semantics already addressed by AC009?

Ugo
SeeBeyond

-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:00 PM
To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion




Hi all,

While discussing reliability of web services in RTF, we hit upon the issue
of how to define the "behavior"
of a web service. Service Defn. based on WSDL only allows the interface
description, and is silent
about what the service will do (semantics). For example, a service
description that takes two parameters and does an "add"
may do a multiplication. The question is whether WSA should "enable" such
semantic definition of the behavior
of services. There may be multiple means to accomplish this, including
"design by contract"[2]. Many may argue that
such a definition may not be complete in most circumstances. In any case,
what do you think?


Here is the item tabled for debate from [1] 
D-AR019.2.2 The functional behavior of two or more web service implementing
the same version (see AR019.3.1) of a web service definition is identical.
	[<sd> the reverse may be true also - two implementations may have
the same behavior but different definitions, but is not worth mentioning
</sd>]

Thanks,

-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0186.html
[2]  http://www.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/contract/

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 18:27:15 UTC