- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:43:50 -0000
- To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi David, > > 3. DISAGREED: Your diagram seems to indicate that a WSDL document does NOT > define the behavior of the client, and I disagree with this. A WSDL > document certainly DOES (partially) define the behavior of the client, in > the same way that it (partially) defines the behavior of the > service. That's what MEPs are all about. An MEP constrains the behavior > of BOTH parties. If the client violates what the MEP requires, then that > client is not behaving in accordance with the WSDL document. The same is > true of the service. > > A WSDL document inherently represents an agreement (or "contract") between > *two* parties: an (unnamed) client and the service. It is written from > the > perspective of the service, but it constrains both. > I see your point of view. However, as you suggested, we disagree (which, of course, is fine:-) A consumer (the client in your diagram) may interact with many services. Suggesting that a WSDL document defines the behaviour of such a consumer may give the wrong impression to the community. A WSDL document defines the contract to which a service is prepared to adhere. If a consumer agrees to the contract, then it has to respect it through its participation to the defined message exchanges and through the use of correct syntax/format for the documents being exchanged (the messages). So, we talk about a consumer's participation in the interaction patterns with respect to a particular contract. (If this is what you were suggesting, then we are in agreement). I think that we both have very similar understandings but we disagree on the minor (and perhaps not very important) details of the wording. Regards, .savas.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 08:43:57 UTC