Re: Transactional Integrity of Services (SHORT)
Chiusano Joseph wrote: > Tangentially related to this discussion: > > SOAP 1.2 Message Normalization became a W3C Note  on 3/28/03. From > the abstract: > > "SOAP 1.2 intermediaries have some license when reserializing messages that > pass through them. This document defines a transformation algorithm that > renders all semantically equivalent SOAP messages identically. The > transformation may be used in conjunction with an XML canonicalization > algorithm prior to the generation of a message digest in producing XML digital > signatures that are sufficiently robust to survive passage through one or more > SOAP intermediaries." Arrrgh. From my original point to its polar opposite in six steps (quite a tangency!). Would anyone care to give a declarative definition of semantic equivalence in the general case? Can that be done except, as here, by prescribing canonical processes in order to constrain their potential outcomes? But isn't that the centrally-controlled converse of what we hope for from web [nocap] services? Isn't the point of WS to offer best-of-breed expert functionality in all of its exquisite idiosyncrasy so that its uncompromised power can be harnessed into customized workflows? But if the processes are canonical to such a degree that we can speak of their outcomes as semantically equivalent, what's the point of using a web-available process rather than building your own and avoiding all the problems of security and of semantic mismatches? Respectfully, Walter Perry
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format