- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:35:37 +0600
- To: "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "'WS Description List'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
"Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com> writes: > > So in short: > > 1. Web Services exchange messages. Yes. > 2. WSDL describes those messages (and perhaps how they might be exchanged). > This includes both abstract and concrete forms of those messages. Yes. Plus, with WSDL 1.2, when the messages are carried over SOAP abstract and concrete forms are precisely the same. > 3. All the other stuff is out of scope (and indeed only makes sense when > there is an application to resolve what it means). Yes. > I believe WSDL can do this, it's just that with nouns like "operation" we > implicitly suggest to developers that WSDL is an IDL, when it isn't, it's a > CDL. Its an IDL in my book, plus the ability to describe how/where that interface is available (service+binding stuff). I don't see why the use of the word "operation" instead of "message exchange" makes it a CDL and not an IDL. Oh BTW, what's a CDL? The WG has taken the decision (repeatedly, IIRC) to stay with the term "operation" to describe a message exchange. So the discussion on the name is no longer productive. Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 11:36:16 UTC