- From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:46:40 -0400
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:39:16 -0600 "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> 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]. Then current WSA terminology is wrong. This proposed language excludes pub/sub services and generally any output-first model. That appears to be the direction that WSA is moving; I'm perfectly happy to dig in my heels and watch them disappear into the sunset. messageExchange is appropriately generic; there is very little other implied semantic. messageExchangeInvolvingAService, perhaps. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 12:16:24 UTC