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

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

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:22:14 -0500
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E40290A0FF@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, steve.vinoski@iona.com
Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:07 AM
> To: 'Mark Baker'; steve.vinoski@iona.com
> Cc: Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> 
> 
> I like the way that this definition is going, too, but I 
> think that as it stands it is too broad because I think it 
> will include orchestrations and the sense of the group seemed 
> to be that orchestrations are a higher level construction 
> than web services. 

OK, but let me make sure I understand: isn't orchestration (and security,
and probably some other things) part of the web services *architecture* even
if they are not integral to the definition of a "web service"? 

I think we have two up-front challenges here:

- Define "web service" in a way that is inclusive of what our companies and
the W3C really want to do with web services yet differentiates them from
"the web" in general.
I would agree that a web service (singular) has one requestor, one
responder, and 0 or more recipients.

- Define goals/priorities for this group so that we address the
architectural issues that are required to build practical and robust web
services.  Clearly orchestration and security are part of that mission.
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 10:23:05 GMT

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