- From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:03:14 -0500
- To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
Mike, I think the issue of "different WSDL documents describing the same service" should be flagged in our document. I would also like to see some additional issues relating to semantics in there (but for now this is a half baked thought) --Katia -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Champion, Mike Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:12 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues > -----Original Message----- > From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:18 PM > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues > What else is > there? Can anyone propose (or point to) a clear, 1-paragraph > or so description of the issue and resolution options for any > of these? Hmm, I wonder if the infamous "what happens when different WSDL documents define the same service" is in this category of issues, or is really in WSD's capable hands to sort out? Some of the recent postings (especially by David Booth) make me wonder if we shouldn't flag these as issues that transcend the spec itself and get into the meta-architectural realm. There are clearly implications for management and discovery here that WSD probably doesn't want to get dragged into, and we won't be around to keep reminding people about. Thoughts?
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 13:04:21 UTC