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

Re: Requirements WSP02, WSP03 & WSP08 (was Re: Web Service Definition)

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:01:26 -0500
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020228170125.GD24669@jibboom.w3.org>
Hi Joe.

* Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net> [2002-02-27 14:39-0800]
> > I don't think that WSP08 is really necessary, or at least not
> > formulated as such. What about:
> > 
> >    WSP08: Web services MUST be able to advertize themselves.
> 
> WSP08 is necessary because the property to be described
> and to be discovered differentiates the Web Service computing
> model from other contenders, such as EDI, CORBA, ...
> 
> I was cognizant of the other Description & Discovery (D&D) models
> (such as WS-Inspection) besides UDDI, which I only used as an
> exemplary reference in WSP08.  What you brought up has flagged
> that WSP08 needs some re-work, which I agree.  However, the
> terse replacement you're suggesting shuts out applications
> that want to be advertised NOT by themselves, but by their
> agents.  I don't think you mean to do that.

Actually, I wasn't happy at all by the phrasing I used. It is indeed
too restrictive.

> So, perhaps we the WG can agree on D&D being a property of WS.
> Can't we?  If we can indeed, then let's figure out the verbiage.  

Agreed. Let me give it another try... what about something as simple
and generic as:

  WSP08: There MUST be a way to advertise Web services in order for
    them to be discovered.

I am still not completely satisfied with this wording...

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 12:01:26 GMT

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