Hi Joseph, > So, instead of trying to compile a list which shall soon > become amiss no matter how exhaustive we can make it now with > existing definitions, I'd propose we take a different tack, > to define web services by properties, which are more likely > to remain invariant with time. As Daniel said, this definitely looks like a set of requirements. But requirements do not a definition make. 8-) I think the definition Steve and I came up is a sort of necessary and sufficient set of features that a service must have in order to be called a Web service. I'm also strongly of the opinion that we *should* define what a web service is separate from what the requirements of an architecture should be to support them. There's additional value add there. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.comReceived on Monday, 25 February 2002 15:46:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:54 GMT