[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> Tangentially related to this discussion:
>
> SOAP 1.2 Message Normalization became a W3C Note [1] 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
|
