----- Original Message ----- From: "Pae Choi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 00:32 Subject: Re: Document style web services
> And that's true ebXML has own stuff all that you mentined. > Shouldn't those considered as positive artifacts. They have finer > refinements than the combination you mentioned. Also, WSDL > is only a "Note" and UDDI did not even considered the WSDL > adoption until the recent release. And those are mainly happened > IBM/MS marrage. I don't think the UDDI is even came to the door > at W3C. Yes, there is nothing in ebXML that is particularly bad, just like there is a lot in Corba that we shouldnt forget about in our rush to use XML everywere down the stack. If there is a weakness in ebXML it is focused on B2B comms, a kind of XML/TCP alternative to EDI. Whereas SOAP works nicely as a behind the firewall means of gluing stuff together. Most of the SOAP stuff I know about is taking place in that area, as it lets people get comfy with a technology before opening up your services to the rest of the world. > Also, if SOAP/WSDL/UDDI is a such perfect combination, why W3C > is working on a new Working Group for Choreography even though > we have many of those from different suggestions led by some > vendors or marriage of some among them. To wit, the current work > and the related artificats at W3C are not even sufficient Web services. W3C has a bit of a dilemma wth web services, to wit they arent that web-centric. For example SOAP over BEEP could be a better transport. Similarly, the w3c's fascination with RDF makes them view web services with a bit of disdain. Even XML was only meant to be a transient data representation syntax on the way to knowledge representation. > All these things are just part of transition toward the better > collaborative solution. In that transition, the combination of SOAP/ > WSDL/UDDI should not be consider only way to stick around. For > example, AFAIK, the asian community adopted ebXML more than > the combination you mentioned and they are already in practice > in the real world. Because ebXML is a formal standard in the > international community. the combination you mentioned is not > even US standard. Maybe its like the phones: mandating something like GSM gives an interop advantage, even if alternate technologies are 'superior' in their own little way. As an aside, does *anyone* use UDDI? -steve
