[MOBY-l] further thoughts on atomic services & service description
mwilkinson at gene.pbi.nrc.ca
Mon Nov 25 13:52:58 EST 2002
Martin Senger wrote:
>>Only if that is the service-providers responsibility. Under the
>>existing MOBY architechture it is not... which is *precisly* why it was
>>designed this way.
> Perhaps I miss something: but WSDL will be always responsibility of the
> service provider, not?
WSDL is just an agreed upon way of represeting a service interface. It
is the service interface which is the important thing for the service
provider to worry about, not the representation of it to the outside
world. In MOBY (current architechture) the interfaces are described in
ontologies, so WSDL is not used to *define* the interface, it is merely
a convenient way to represent it. Hence, it is not the service
If the entire WSDL spec dies an untimely death, MOBY will still survive
WSDL is not a magic bullet, and I am loathe to start leaning on it too
much. As I ranted about to the I3C last week - the goal is not the
registration of arbitrary services, the goal is interoperability. In
some cases service providers will have to be willing to re-define their
services to play the MOBY game, because MOBY is in no way arbitrary.
"Speed is subsittute fo accurancy."
Dr. Mark Wilkinson, RA Bioinformatics
National Research Council, Plant Biotechnology Institute
110 Gymnasium Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
phone : (306) 975 5279
pager : (306) 934 2322
mobile: markw_mobile at illuminae dot com
More information about the moby-l