W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Late binding

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

Heather Kreger
Web Services Lead Architect
STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
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?


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
> 2. Static Deploy Time Binding - The WSDL PortType is known and set at
> 3. Static Runtime Binding - The WSDL PortType is known and set at
> 4. - Dynamic Binding - The WSDL PortType is not known or set at

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:34 UTC