- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:23:20 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webMethods.com>
- cc: fablet@crf.canon.fr, <keithba@microsoft.com>, <prasad.yendluri@webMethods.com>, <Waqar.sadiq@eds.com>, <sanjiva@us.ibm.com>, <ksankar@cisco.com>, Web Services Description mailing list <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Prasad, thanks for your comments. I'll move some of my replies
into different messages so that we capture different subthreads
independently.
For the other reply, please see below.
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> > 4) In AM, do we need to tackle protocol bindings and type
> > languages in detail?
>
> <PY>The bindings seem like a clear cut case of not belonging in AM
> unless we are changing the definition of what abstract is. Current line
> of division between abstract and concrete is what I still have a
> reference here. Are you thinking we need to revisit that?
> </PY>
OK, I think I agree here. 8-)
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 09:23:26 UTC