RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by "Nieman, Scott"
>  It is my belief that I either model it correctly to
so that either 1) "SOAP compliant" messages fall out of the model, or 2)
"SOAP-like" messages which ignore the types in the SOAP specificaiton.  It
will dictate how my UML model for the operation signatures are created.

Scott<

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Scott - this is the whole point about the Pandora's Box!

Please STOP being fixated on SOAP (or similar!).

Notice that   <bakedbeans colour="brown" size="small"/>

is the same as 

<product type="bakedbeans" color="brown"><size>small</size></product>

 and so on.

We should be focusing on the semantic content and NOT 
the specific dialect.

I can generate ANY dialect, or make any dialect look like
another.

As for SOAP messages - again this animal is a Transport WG thing
to grapple with.and decide interoperable requirements.

In your UML model you should be able to have a simple neutral 'operation' 
blackbox that then resolves to whatever dialect.   It's SOAP's problem to
resolve how the wires are glued together on the cabling, not ours!

DW.