RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata

["Eric Newcomer" <eric.newcomer@iona.com>]

Actually I see SOAP as supporting this type of interaction.  There was a
considerable discussion during the V1.1 work about this, and I think the
result was embracing both styles of interaction -- pure or typical RPC with
formatted interfaces and generic XML message passing.

Regarding the "bridge" concept, we definitely agreed SOAP as it stands is
primarily effective as a bridge technology -- bridging portals or object
models across the Internet. As a CORBA vendor we would recommend IIOP across
the Internet for a full-function protocol (as MSFT might similarly recommend
DCOM I suppose), but we are facing the reality that the Internet has
different qualities and characteristics than an intranet.

We look at SOAP as a starting point, and encourage ebXML to join or support
the potential W3C work on extensions and enhancements.  We do not know of a
better alternative starting point.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml-architecture@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml-architecture@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of David
> RR Webber
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 6:40 PM
> To: Nieman, Scott
> Cc: ebXML-Architecture List; Cory Casanave; 'Iyengar, Sridhar'; Miller,
> Robert (GXS); ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata
>
>
> Message text written by "Nieman, Scott"
> >
> Finally, I too am not a big SOAP fan (as it is currently written) since it
> is too tight a binding to the operation itself, and promotes the
> concept of
> "bridges" - which software vendors seem to like in order to sustain their
> business.  Lose all the arrays, and other argument "types", and treat the
> XML document as a string for each operation argument, and then the spec is
> philosophically "right-on".  Leave the operation implementation up to
> others; i.e., let me determine whether I parse it with the DOM, SAX, or
> custom, and call my RPC, ActiveX, or CORBA interfaces.  Operation
> invocation
> should be the only goal with the specification, and it should be a simple
> specification at that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Well now you've said it!  I was being more polite - but yes - right on
> here!
>
> SOAP is a step in the right? direction in terms of Schemas though?  The
> scrary thing here is it opens up a Pandora's Box - where the Schema is
> not a schema but a re-map of W3C schema as a schema dialect that
> thereby removes or obscures the original syntax from the end user,
> if you follow the thought process.
>
> Sort of 'roll your own schema' toolkit.
>
> Fun.
>
> DW.
>