RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata

["Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>]

<SNIP>
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.</SNIP>

<Scott>No problem here.  I am totally supporting the intent.</Scott>

<SNIP>
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.</SNIP>

<Scott>When I talk about bridges, I could easily bridge between an XML
architecture to RPC, however, there is more to bridge in the SOAP
specification than just XML.  Specifically the argument types, and the
permissible types between DCOM, CORBA, etc.  I remember that the WebBroker
note went into the "type mapping" in painful detail, and that is why it
failed.  Why should SOAP detail these types at all, versus just referencing
a DTD or Schema that the "type" must adhere too?   Its really that
simple.</Scott>