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

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

From: Sandeep Kumar <sandkuma@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:07:16 -0800
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Vinoski, Stephen" <steve.vinoski@iona.com>
Cc: "Joseph Hui" <jhui@digisle.net>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
If D&D are not an integral part of a Web Service defintion, pl help me
how would you define a Web (or a Network) of Web Services, the participants.

At a high-level, they must at least have the same characteristics. If not,
it would be much harder to reason about them semantically, deal with
managing & monitoring them.

Sandeep Kumar
Cisco Systems

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Mark Baker
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:51 PM
To: Vinoski, Stephen
Cc: Joseph Hui; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]

> 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.

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 23:07:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:54 UTC