W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]

From: Vinoski, Stephen <steve.vinoski@iona.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:17:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4A31A61D72604FAF84C29C8EA28481093980@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Whoa, hold on a second, this discussion is giving me "what is an object"
flashbacks...OK, I think I'm better now. :-)

I think Web Services have three key elements:

1) Identified by URI
2) Accessible via standard web protocols
3) Capable of interacting with applications and programs that are not
directly human-driven user interfaces, e.g. web browsers

So, Mike, just thinking out load here, but if we tweak your definition
that currently appears in the editor draft requirements:

"A web service is a software application or component identified by a
URI that other software applications or components can directly interact
with via web-based protocols, where said interactions do not require
direct human involvement."

Broad? Yes. But I think it's necessary to be broad. I don't believe you
can define the basis of web services in terms of standards or
technologies, other than the web itself (which is OK given that "web"
already appears in its name). For example, objects are not defined in
terms or CORBA or Java specifications. Java objects are defined in terms
of Java, and CORBA objects are defined in terms of CORBA, but plain old
objects are defined essentially in plain old terms. Similarly, perhaps
we need both a broad definition like the one above, and then a separate
"W3C Web Services" definition made tighter by basing it on relevant W3C


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 4:47 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> > 
> > It seems that WSDL is the candidate for describing that 
> > contrat and that
> > unless necessary it should be the only mechanism.
> OK, but if we *define* a "web service" as something that uses 
> WSDL to define
> the contract, a lot of people are going to be unhappy!  Also, 
> there's the
> matter that WSDL is merely an industry consortium proposal and the W3C
> working group is just getting underway.
> I could live with an architecture that says that WSDL is the 
> *preferred*
> contract language, but we are not discussing that yet, just 
> trying to define
> "web service."  This is probably a candidate for the Issues List.
> > It would also be very useful to have a set of real world 
> use cases of
> > applications that would best be build on top of a service-oriented
> > architecture.
> I believe this was discussed on the call yesterday, and 
> someone is going to
> see if we can appropriate SOAP 1.2's use cases ... and maybe the WSDL
> group's as well.  Should the definition reference use cases?  
> I don't think
> so, but obviously the architecture should.
> > 
> >  should we have to care about how J2EE and 
> > .NET will implement web services architecture (and get in 
> the level of
> reference
> > sharing, distributed garbage collection, etc...)?
> That sounds like the WS-I's mission in life, not ours.
Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 15:18:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:54 UTC