I think WSDM is made up of the
- It is a profile on WSRF/WSN
which are protocols. Is a profile of a protocol a protocol?
- It is a management framework
in that several management capabilities are defined. But these
capabilities are defined on top of the profile mentioned above. The
above profile is the core of WSDM.
- MOWS is a model for Web
separating the daylights out this Primer and was wondering if WSDM is
defining a "protocol" or a framework? According to Webster's, a
protocol is a set of rules determining the format and transmission of
data. Now, transmission to me means seems to imply how something is
implemented. Are we seeking to define how
the transmission is implemented? The format of the transmission, yes,
I believe so. However, should we not seek to keep implementation out
of the mix? I know that Web Services is how we'll do it; however
should we limit ourselves by WSDM's current implementation?
Abstraction I'm sure is the goal. I'm sure we would want the standard
to last farther than a few years.
HTTP-now that is a protocol. SOAP is a protocol. But WSDM is taking
advantage of the SOAP protocol as format protocol and HTTP as the
transport protocol. So are we providing the framework to sit on the
top of these protocols or the protocol? I say framework but please
correct me if I'm off-base.
to be such a nitpick, but I'm German and I'm an engineer; a culturally
genetic form of the Obsessive-Compulsive. :)
und Guten Abend!
International Skype number, when calling
Brambleton, Virginia 20148
- SMS/Phone email