Re: What does WSDL describe?

Reluctant agreement.  Much as I dislike the name, I don't think that we
win anything by arguing about it, and I very strongly doubt that we will
achieve anything like consensus on an alternative.  It's a rat hole;
let's mark it as such and stay away.

Amy!
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:05:13 +0600
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> *2 to Jeffrey's -1 (I was going to say +1 but then that could be
> misunderstood as negating (positivating?) Jeffrey's -1 ;-)).
> 
> I'm going to make a motion at the next call that the WG establish
> a principle of "just say no" to the <operation> renaming proposals.
> Semantic disambuigity is not fixed by renaming - the fact that
> people think that the "problem" is the name shows that nothing is
> really broken .. just that some people don't like some of the names
> chosen. Neither do I, but the pragmatist in me says some names are
> here to stay.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
> To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>; "Jim Webber"
> <jim.webber@arjuna.com> Cc: "Savas Parastatidis"
> <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>; "Anne Thomas Manes"
> <anne@manes.net>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29,
> 2003 7:37 AM Subject: RE: What does WSDL describe?
> 
> 
> >
> > -1
> >
> > WSDL needs to focus on describing messages received by / sent from a
> > service. Any normative differences between an
> > 'interactions/exchange' and 'interface/operation' would be a
> > commitment to model.
> >
> > --Jeff
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Mark Baker
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:21 AM
> > > To: Jim Webber
> > > Cc: 'Savas Parastatidis'; 'Anne Thomas Manes'; www-ws-desc@w3.org;
> > > distobj@acm.org
> > > Subject: Re: What does WSDL describe?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 04:10:09PM -0000, Jim Webber wrote:
> > > > Savas:
> > > >
> > > > > <interactions>
> > > > >   <exchange>
> > > > >     <input message="" />
> > > > >   </exchange>
> > > > >   <exchange>
> > > > >     <input message="" />
> > > > >     <output message="" />
> > > > >   </exchange>
> > > > > <interactions>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet something else to consider :-)
> > > >
> > > > I like it. It is short (Anne's concern), and captures what a
> > > > service
> > > does
> > > > (exchanges messages). It is unambiguous too since it does not
> > > > imply
> > any
> > > > semantics like certain other keywords do :-)
> > >
> > > What about supporting both "operation" and "exchange", as they
> > > mean different things, and it seems that folks want both.
> > >
> > > "exchange", as I understand what Savas means by it, would be used
> > > for what I call "state transfer".  But when there is an operation
> > > in
> > effect,
> > > "operation" would be used.
> > >
> > > This would mostly address my issue, in fact, as by using one or
> > > the other, a WSDL document would be resolving the previous
> > > ambiguity I discussed.
> > >
> > > Mark.
> > > --
> > > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       
> > > http://www.markbaker.ca
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 09:51:50 UTC