This didn't seem to make it to the list, so resending ..
Forwarded message 1
Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Consensus favors single interface for service!
> * jeffm the crowd cheers
> * sanjiva wonders whether we'll be back to square one on the list as
> today appears to be a lightly attended call
Amy Lewis was unfortunately not on this call, but as you know, she's
been pretty vocal in opposition to this.
I agree with her arguments, which in brief are these:
1. it isn't really simpler to link services via a targetResource
identifier, it is more complex than using XML containment. And in fact,
logically, containment, not linking, is what is being modelled here.
2. "targetResource" is an unintutive name for the linking concept (if
not for everyone, then for many people).
See also Frank McCabe's recent comments in WSA:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jul/0045.html
and a longer discussion in
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/05/2003-05-29-ws-arch.htm
(which reveals IMO that even a savvy group of people were confused
by targetResource).
FYI Web service composition has been a recent topic of discussion in
WS-Choreography, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0030.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0031.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0033.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0034.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0035.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jul/0039.html
But IMO a major function of a choreography description is to model the
pattern of data flows that connect multiple participants together.
It doesn't replace the static grouping that WSDL provides. I think
choreography is solving a different set of problems (despite some of the
above referenced messages that seem to suggest otherwise).
--Jon