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

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

From: Eric Newcomer <eric.newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:45:44 -0800
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FFEDIILGIAFELAMIJNMNCEEHCMAA.eric.newcomer@iona.com>
Yes, I think so -- an architecture should be defined in any case in terms of
its functional areas rather than specific technologies.  I guess this
applies even for SOAP.  Although once the functional areas are identified it
makes sense to map specific technologies into them as fitting the goals of
the architecture.

In the case of WSDL, for example, the functional area would be service
description, and a specific technology to map would be WSDL.  SOAP for the
message format area, HTTP and others for network transport area, and so on.

I also think, as I mentioned in the previous email, that viewing the actions
of the message receiver (and therfore perhaps by implication also the
actions of the sender) would provide a good way to come up with a list of
required functional areas for the architecture.  This could sensibly build
upon or further refine the processing model in the SOAP spec.

The most important thing in my opinion is going to be getting the
architecture to map successfully onto any underlying implementation
platform -- operating system, programming language, middleware system, etc.

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 11:19 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]





> From: Eric Newcomer [mailto:eric.newcomer@iona.com]

>  But it would seem  inevitable that
> SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI -- perhaps more correctly the services and
> functionality they represent -- have a place in the scheme of things.


> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)

>3 - I strongly favor functional definition of web service
> within a broad echnical framework.  That is, I like saying that
> web services have to use URI's and XML, I don't like saying they
>  have to use WSDL and/or UDDI.

We might be converging on something here ... A web service is defined by the
FUNCTIONALITY of SOAP, WSDL, and perhaps UDDI; those are in some sense
"ideal type" definitions of a web service, but so long as the interface is
rigorously defined using some combination of URIs and XML, we agree that it
is a "web service."  Are we getting there?

Actually, discovery ("UDDI functionality") probably doesn't have to be as
rigorously defined as the envelope format and message exchange pattern
(SOAP's functionality) and the actual format of the invocation/response
(WSDL's functionality).  An "invitation only" service is still a "web
service" ... Does anyone disagree?
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2002 13:50:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:54 GMT