- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:18:24 -0400
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: "'WS Description List'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 09:39 AM, Champion, Mike wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jim Webber [mailto:jim.webber@arjuna.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:52 AM >> To: 'Mark Baker'; 'Umit Yalcinalp' >> Cc: 'WS Description List' >> Subject: RE: On WSDL "operation" >> > >> It could be as simple as re-naming "operation" to something >> like "messageExchange." > > Yeah, but a WSDL "operation" presumably DOES something. It's not just > a > message for the sake of sending bits around. How about > "serviceInvocation" > or "serviceRequest" or something along those lines? If a WSDL message > does > anything, it does request that a service be performed by the provider > on > behalf of the requester [the current WSA terminology, IIRC]. In DAML-S, the thing roughly corresponding to a WSDL operation is modeled as an AtomicProcess. Hmm. I'm not sure that's quite right, but I suppose the idea is clear enough. The slightly different perspectives seem to revolve around whether you are primarily concerned with the *form* of the interaction (i.e., message exhange) or the *thing* interacted with (the process), with the latter being mostly concerned with the *accomplishment*/invocation/what have you. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:15:21 UTC