   From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> Date: Mon,
23 Feb 2004 11:54:43 -0800 Message-ID:
<403A5A83.2060601@oracle.com> To: Jim Webber
<Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk> Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>,
www-ws-desc@w3.org  Jim Webber wrote:  >>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 >application-specific semantics
perme