- From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:41:17 -0700
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Jonathan Marsh wrote: > Consensus favors single interface for service! > * jeffm the crowd cheers > * sanjiva wonders whether we'll be back to square one on the list as > today appears to be a lightly attended call Amy Lewis was unfortunately not on this call, but as you know, she's been pretty vocal in opposition to this. I agree with her arguments, which in brief are these: 1. it isn't really simpler to link services via a targetResource identifier, it is more complex than using XML containment. And in fact, logically, containment, not linking, is what is being modelled here. 2. "targetResource" is an unintutive name for the linking concept (if not for everyone, then for many people). See also Frank McCabe's recent comments in WSA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jul/0045.html and a longer discussion in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/05/2003-05-29-ws-arch.htm (which reveals IMO that even a savvy group of people were confused by targetResource). FYI Web service composition has been a recent topic of discussion in WS-Choreography, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0030.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0031.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0033.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0034.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0035.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0039.html But IMO a major function of a choreography description is to model the pattern of data flows that connect multiple participants together. It doesn't replace the static grouping that WSDL provides. I think choreography is solving a different set of problems (despite some of the above referenced messages that seem to suggest otherwise). --Jon
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 01:00:45 UTC