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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:06:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4A31A61D72604FAF84C29C8EA2848118941C@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Joseph Hui" <jhui@digisle.net>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
I still have to agree with Mark that you're defining requirements, not
creating a web services definition. I suggest again, as Mark did, that
we work from the one that he and I put together. Is there something
wrong with it? Is ti missing something?

--steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:59 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> 
> 
> > From: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
> [snip]
> 
> Hi Anne,
> 
> > I'm a bit averse to using the terms MUST NOT, SHOULD, and MAY.
> 
> They were tided over from IETF.  Their virtue in standards discourse
> lies in the technical vigor as defined in RFC 2119.  They do tend to
> stiffen up sentences, to the detriment of their literary appeal. :-(
> 
> > I'm not sure
> > that we should impose the constraint defined by WSP04.
> 
> WSP04 slams a door (a door, not all doors) at those who have funny
> ideas about hacking into a host via web services.  It also takes
> away a big rope (not all ropes, a rope nonetheless) that some
> implementors/deployers may hang themselves by accident.
> WSP04 pretty much conveys "web services have a property of being
> hacker unfriendly."  (BTW, "safe" could supplant "hacker unfriendly"
> with a leaning toward generality.)
> 
> > I think it's useful
> > to include WSP05, although I don't think it's an essential 
> aspect of what
> > makes a web service a web service. I'm ambiguous about WSP06.
> 
> WSP06 may be thought of as a clause of self-preservation (or 
> robustness
> by agnosticism. ;-)
> 
> > I think WSP07 goes into too much detail.
> 
> Point well taken.  Indeed we can do away with the embellishment --
> the last phrase of the first sentence and the parenthesized text,
> unless others object.
> 
> > I think WSP08 gets too much into architecture,
> > and isn't an essential aspect of what makes a web service a 
> web service.
> 
> WSP08 is about D&D, which differentiates the web service 
> model from the
> rest.  That is, D&D is one of the properties that WS are made of.
> 
> [snip]
> > One recommendation that I would make to Joseph's definition 
> is that we not
> > call out any specific technologies (WSDL, UDDI, etc.) in the core
> > definition. Our architecture should provide recommendations on which
> > technologies to use, not the definition.
> 
> I can go along with not calling out specific technologies, and also
> to err on the side of generality (as opposed to specificity) if
> that's the WG's consensus.  As stated in a previous message, I'd
> like to also reiterate my position that we should be as specific
> as feasible.
> 
> > I'd also prefer to use the more generic term "contract" 
> rather than "well
> > defined input/output parameters".
> 
> "Contract" can mean different things to different folks in WS.
> Thus one has to be overtly conscious of the context when "contract"
> is invoked.  Right off the bat, XLang comes to mind.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Joe Hui
> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 15:07:38 GMT

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