- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:50:15 +0200 (CEST)
- To: fablet@crf.canon.fr, <keithba@microsoft.com>, <ksankar@cisco.com>, <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <prasad.yendluri@webMethods.com>, <sandkuma@cisco.com>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <Waqar.sadiq@eds.com>
- cc: Web Services Description mailing list <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi all. 8-)
I've been thinking about what Sanjiva seems to dislike about the
direction my first proposal of the AM [1] was going in.
IIRC his comments were that my notion of Abstract Model is not a
true abstract model, that it's just a reformulation of the
current spec in other words. (Sanjiva, please do correct me if
I'm wrong.)
When we make a model of a house, it can be built of paper and
matches. It can be viewed as a house built to different scale and
using different materials, but since the plumbing is just matches
and since the model won't stand any wind or rain, it's not a
house, even though it does have walls, roof and plumbing. Using
this model, you can discuss what the roles of walls, roof and
plumbing is and how they connect.
In the same way my proposal is a model of WSDL - it has the same
terms as WSDL but they are just an approximation, on which it is
easier to show and explain what the terms are meant to do and how
they relate. IMHO this is exactly what we wanted to achieve with
the AM - have something on which the main architectural issues
are solved easily without worrying about the nitty-gritty
details.
As for abstraction, IMO as the infoset is an abstraction of XML,
my proposal is an abstraction of WSDL.
So all together, I believe my proposal can be a suitable
Abstract Model of Web Services Description Language.
Your comments will be welcome. 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/0153.html
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 09:50:59 UTC