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
- MOWS is a model for Web service
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
Take 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
Sorry to be such a
nitpick, but I'm German and I'm an engineer; a culturally genetic form of the
Bonsoir und Guten
International Skype number, when calling
Brambleton, Virginia 20148
email@example.com – Work
firstname.lastname@example.org – Personal