- From: <kreger@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:22:28 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF189A4B23.BE957D36-ON85256BE6.0053EB65@us.ibm.com>
Scenario 3 or 4 will work. Scenario 3 works if there is a standard PortType that companies that want to form adhoc relationships using web services. In some industries, medical? travel?, these sorts of interfaces already exist and it seems reasonable to me that some (or all) of it will move to Web services. Scenario 4 works w/o a standard PortType, but with a standard 'message'. Quite honestly Mark, I'm not sure what you are driving at. There is no argument from me that todays Web services technology does not provide enough standardized metadata to do dynamic contract negotiation in a standard fashion. Its an emerging technology. We have a place to express it, mostly, but what is to be expressed has not been standardized yet. There will need to be some marriage of ebXML data (and others) into Web services paradigm. Hopefully this group can help identify and kick some of that off. Throwing 'gets' at URLs is no more capable of supporting dynamic contract negotiation. It has exactly the same problem. Just because you get something doesn't mean you know what to do with it once you have it unless its standardized, described to death, or already agreed on. Even if its XML and has a nice XML schema. Web services is working on the standardized and described to death approach. Heather Kreger Web Services Lead Architect STSM, SWG Emerging Technology kreger@us.ibm.com 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> on 06/27/2002 05:16:48 PM To: Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Late binding This looks like a fine summary of what is capable with Web services technologies today. I have one question. Which of these support two parties communicating something meaningful (like presenting an offer to enter into a business contract) without any previous communication between them taking place? MB On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 04:45:23PM -0400, kreger@us.ibm.com wrote: > 1. Static Development Time Binding - The WSDL Port is known and set at [snip] > 2. Static Deploy Time Binding - The WSDL PortType is known and set at [snip] > 3. Static Runtime Binding - The WSDL PortType is known and set at [snip] > 4. - Dynamic Binding - The WSDL PortType is not known or set at development MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 12:22:44 UTC