W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:55:32 -0400
Message-ID: <3CFF77E4.70801@sun.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
CC: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

think so, but isn't wsdl's request-response ~= soap's request-response
as defined in part2? Given that we already (will) have a formal
definition that is defined for use with the HTTP binding, wouldn't
it be wise to simply leverage this directly via its URI?

I would think that a rigorously defined MEP for solicit-response
(if agreement as to what it means can be reached:) ala the
treatment that SOAP1.2 Part2 gives its MEPs would be a good

It has even been suggested that the wsawg maintain a "registry"
of defined MEPs as a service (probably a document that links to
the the various MEP spec documents).

My $0.02,

Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> This sounds good. Would the next step then be to handle the existing
> WSDL MEPs (e.g. request-response, sollicit-response) the same way, i.e.
> to outsource their definition and give them a URI?
> Jean-Jacques.
> Christopher Ferris wrote:
>>I'm at a loss here. While some vocabulary that defined
>>MEPs with angle-brackets might be a good thing(tm), it isn't
>>at all clear to me that it is needed. SOAP1.2 defines
>>MEPs and assigns URIs to these formal definitions. It also
>>recommends in the binding framework that MEPs be named
>>with a URI[1].
>>I think that rather than treat this through extensibility
>>in WSDL, that a binding identify the MEPs it supports
>>with a URI (or qname I suppose, but we may need to do some
>>coordination on that).
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 10:58:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:23 UTC