Re: On WSDL "operation"

On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:35  AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> "Jim Webber" <> writes:
>> 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.

In the spirit of non-productivity, I'll note that we get the following 
from Roget's (emphs. added):
Entry:    operation

Function:    noun

Definition:    working

act, action, activity, affair, agency, application, ball game, bit, 
carrying on, conveyance, course, deal, deed, doing, effect, effort, 
employment, engagement, enterprise, exercise, exercising, exertion, 
exploitation, force, handiwork, happening, influence, instrumentality, 
labor, manipulation, motion, movement, performance, play, procedure, 
proceeding, process, progress, progression, scene, ****service****, 
transaction, transference, trip, undertaking, use, work, workmanship

Concept:    ****usefulness****

More seriously, if the problem lies in what we implicitly suggest to 
developers, then the real solution is to explicitly contradict the 
implicit suggestion. The pain of leaving the explicit contradiction of 
an implicit suggestion must be weighed against Yet Another Somewhat 
Gratuitious Name Change.

I suggest, implicity, something like the following text:

"To some, the term 'operation' might implicity suggest that an 
operation describes something more than a message exchange. In WSDL, 
nothing could be further from the case. That a particular operation 
gets mapped, in some application, to, say, a method invocation is 
*never* said, suggested, implied, or endorsed by the existence of a 
WSDL operation component. Don't go there."

Bijan Parsia.

Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 12:11:13 UTC