- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 08:11:48 -0500
- To: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hmm. Do we adopt the perspective that Mike is referring to below? If so it seems to me that we'd have to make the R120 proposal from Arthur into a normative one .. contrary to what we plan on doing now as I recall. Bye, Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> To: "Joao Paulo Andrade Almeida" <almeida@cs.utwente.nl>; <www-ws-arch@w3.org> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 10:29 AM Subject: RE: definition of web services in "web services architecture" > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joao Paulo Andrade Almeida [mailto:almeida@cs.utwente.nl] > > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:25 AM > > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > > Subject: definition of web services in "web services architecture" > > > > > > > > Services described in WSDL 1.1 are not identified by a URI. > > Instead, each port of a service is identified by a URI. > > > > Is this intentional? Have I interpreted the definition > > correctly? > > I can't speak for the working group's intention vis a vis WSDL 1.1. > Nevertheless, the general purpose of the definition is to look forward to a > "reference architecture" incorporating WSDL 1.2 than to be backward > compatible with everything we now think of as a "web service". This does > not mean that WSDL 1.1 can't be used to describe "web services", just that > it is best practice to use URIs whenever feasible to identify web service > components so as to maximize compatibility and interoperability with the > rest of the Web. WSDL 1.2 adopts this perspective. > > In light of this, could you suggest some specific clarifications in the > text?
Received on Sunday, 1 December 2002 08:14:19 UTC