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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:50:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203010250.VAA21313@markbaker.ca>
To: steve.vinoski@iona.com (Vinoski, Stephen)
Cc: jhui@digisle.net (Joseph Hui), www-ws-arch@w3.org
> 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.

Here's my 2c on "D&D".

"Discovery", without a doubt, is a key requirement of a web service.
What use is one that you can't find? 8-) But going back to our
definition, I'd say it's already covered by the point that requires
that Web services be identified by URIs.  Having a URI means that
discovery can be achieved in an infinite number of ways, not just one
way.  It can be centralized through a mechanism like UDDI (not that UDDI
is very URI friendly though, but that will change), or it can be
decentralized, such as when I send a URI in an email message, or post
one up on my web page.

So I'd say that we don't need to spell it out, not because it's not a
necessary part of a definition, but because it's already there. 8-)

"Description" I see as more ephemeral.  I'm not aware of anything that
can't be described.  So I don't see it as being very useful in a
definition.  But as a *requirement*, IMO, it's clearly important that an
architecture support it.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 21:47:18 GMT

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