W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

RE: 2004-02-12 Action Item: Clarification to the OperationName feature

From: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:13:45 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA801CD24F@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


> Ah, right, it's that one again. 8-)

Indeed it is.
> But as I think I must have said before, you seem to be trying 
> to make WSDL be something that it isn't.  That may or may not 
> be a good thing to do, but every use of WSDL I've seen uses 
> it describe application interfaces, so that's where my 
> comments are coming from.

I'm not trying to make WSDL anything else, it already is a message
description langauge. Some people like to think that it describes this
mythical application, but I see no justifcation for that. The
"application" that receives a message described in WSDL might be a human
reading a fax. How does that tie in with an operation?

I guess it all depends on your view point. Some people see web services
as a point-to-point means of joining my thing to your thing  (with
application-specific semantics permeating the network layer). I see it
as a canonical messaging platform for joining anything to everything
(minus any baggage from the application layer). 

Received on Sunday, 22 February 2004 21:14:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:38 UTC