- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:11:26 +0100
- To: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
All,
[snip]
>
> "messageName" seems good to me, since that's what it is - the name of
the
> message in the pattern spec. "messageReference" (or "messageRef")
would
> be good as well, since it makes it clear that this is a reference to
an
> external document.
>
> --Glen
For what it's worth, I agree that a message is described and hence
"messageName" is appropriate. Without wanting to confuse matters further
I was wondering what people thought about the following suggestion.
Since WSDL defines the messages that are received/sent by a Web Service,
wouldn't it be more appropriate to rename "operation" to "messages" or
even "message-group"?
<interface>
<messages> or <message-group>
<input messageName="..."/>
<output messageName="..."/>
<fault messageName="..."/>
</messages>
</interface>
Or
<interface>
<messages>
<input message="..."/>
<output message="..."/>
<fault message="..."/>
</messages>
</interface>
Would that confuse people more than it would help?
A web service is an agent that sends/receives messages and not an agent
that has operations (at least that's my understanding from the WSA
document).
Just thinking aloud here.
Regards,
.savas.
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 14:11:33 UTC