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

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

From: Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:02:45 -0800
Message-ID: <C153D39717E5F444B81E7B85018A460B06685848@ex-sj-5.digisle.com>
To: "Vinoski, Stephen" <steve.vinoski@iona.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinoski, Stephen [mailto:steve.vinoski@iona.com]
[snip]
> The definition does not disallow D&D -- rather, it explicitly does not
> include them because they are not necessary. URIs, standard internet
> protocols, and non-human-driven application-to-application interaction
> are key, but D&D are not, as I and others have already explained.
> 
> > Now, I think we can work this out.
> > Since your properties list does not use RFC-2119 terms like MUST
> > SHOULD MAY, and it's not been said a WS must possess all properties
> > listed.  That leaves the room for saying a WS must possess some of
> > the properties listed.  In that case, then what problem will adding
> > D&D to the list cause?  Would this work for you?
> 
> Not really, because RFC-2119 is about standards language. Our Web
> Services definition need not use standards language, and in fact it
> would be best if it didn't, to maximize broadness and 
> generality. Let's
> leave the standards language for our actual standards.

You missed the point, Steve.  The question was not about using 
RFC-2119 terms.  It's about adding D&D to the list.
BTW, what we've been doing is standards work, as far as I'm
concerned.  I for one am not here to play with words.

As for "maximize broadness and generality," would 
"Web services are the dot in dot-anything"
broad enough, gerneal enough? :-)

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 20:02:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:55 GMT