RE: What WSDL defines - the diagram!

i thought the 'protocol' was described by the binding  and MEP being used 
- but i guess that would mean we could start to debate what 'protocol' actually means :-)
 
there does come a point when you're so losely coupled, you're not actually coupled at all..
 
Paul

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
 Sent: Tue 04/11/2003 15:41 
 To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C 
 Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
 Subject: Re: What WSDL defines - the diagram!
 
 

 Cool, thanks for tackling that at the f2f.
 
 But I disagree with the diagram.  As it was explained to me, a WSDL 2.0
 document could be said to "describe the syntax" of client and service
 ("schema in, schema out"), rather than "define the behaviour", which
 would require defining what in/out means in relation to any requested
 semantics (aka the protocol).
 
 WSDL 1.1 describes the protocol in that it suggests that a successful
 response to a message means that the requested operation in the message
 was successfully invoked.  WSDL 2.0 is ambiguous.
 
 Mark.
 --
 Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2003 11:33:10 UTC