RE: Proposed Venn Diagrams

Well, with you I'm willing to leave this to others -- I'm mostly asking
a question.  But I sort of thought that the idea of making SOAP support
the GET style was to make sure that the D box included semantics
sufficient to support C-like operations.  Questioning, questioning --
not arguing this as a point of view, although it may sound like I am.  I
think, however, that if they are truly disjoint I may have a bit more
trouble understanding exactly what they are.  Maybe that's just a
request for more explanation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 10:43 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed Venn Diagrams





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 11:34 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed Venn Diagrams
> 
> 
> Well, if D has an "open" (I like that better than "custom", cannot one

> choose to use an interface that just happens to be the same as used in

> C?  Perhaps this is semantic or perhaps the issue is real -- I can't 
> really tell.

I see your point now. I think I was taking the idea that they are
distinct/disjoint/antonyms literally rather than considering this point.
Fine by me, if Mark, Dave O., and others who are deeply involved in
sorting out these concepts and terms can live with them being "sortof
disjoint" but not completely. Still, since the whole point of a
reference architecture is to draw clear lines in abstract space even
though the concrete reality is fuzzy, I'm not sure if this is worth
doing.

Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 11:49:49 UTC