RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the de finition of Web service"

ok, a really dumb question: why would SOAP binding be more interoperabe than
plain XML binding?  

Hao

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:32 PM
To: Jeff Mischkinsky; David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the
definitio n of Web service"



Yes, that's my point too.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 8:34 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the
> definitio n of Web service"
> 
> 
> I think the point here is that for interoperability reasons 
> we need to 
> require at least a SOAP binding. Other bindings are possible 
> and useful in 
> addition.
>    jeff
> 
> At 03:08 PM 6/4/2003, Ugo Corda wrote:
> 
> >By the same logic, would a WSDL binding to plain Java calls 
> (sender and 
> >receiver within the same Java process) correspond to a Web 
> service? Or a 
> >WSDL binding to RMI, or to DCOM, or to IIOP? Certainly possible WSDL 
> >bindings cover a lot of territory ...
> >
> >Ugo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:47 PM
> > > To: 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'Christopher B Ferris'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL 
> intrinsic to the
> > > definitio n of Web service"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Another question to the +10ers.  If a WSDL file can describe
> > > a service that
> > > uses HTTP GET and POST and not SOAP, as in
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_http,
> > > is that service a web service?  Under the +10 definition, it
> > > isn't.  So the
> > > "Web service" description language describes Web service +
> > > something else.
> > > What do you call that something else that WSD can describe
> > > but isn't a Web
> > > service?  Which also means that we actually have a Web
> > > Service + some other
> > > thing Description Language.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> >
> 
>