- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:32:32 +0600
- To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes: > > This problem is exactly why I wanted the WSD group to change some of the > definitions. I suggested endpoint -> web service and service -> web service > collection. So a web service is an individual endpoint identified by a URI, > ie a Web service=Resource. Now we've got this wierd situation where a web > service is this collection of resources, so how do we say what a web service > is without getting abstract? There is currently a proposal in front of the WSDL WG (by me) to restrict a <service> to a single interface (aka portType) and to say that all <port>s within that service MUST implement precisely that portType. That means that a single service is defined as something that provides some function (as defined by that interface) and available on one or more ports (or endpoints). The service is still uniquely identified by the QName of the <service> element, which is kinda like a virtual "resource." Does that help? If so please help push that position! ;-) Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 11:32:00 UTC