- From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:08:55 -0700
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
This proposal is only going to fly technically if we also grasp the composite service nettle. Frank On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 08:32 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > > "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 12:09:09 UTC