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

RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:57:18 -0700
Message-ID: <C513FB68F8200244B570543EF3FC653708AE3546@MAIL1.stc.com>
To: "'Damodaran, Suresh'" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Suresh,
Relying on service agreements could be an acceptable approach for the time
being, particularly in a B2B context. 

But I think that a more crisp definition of SLAs would need to be introduced
in WSA that clearly encompasses this particular notion of "semantics". So
far service level agreements are mentioned in the Requirements doc only in
two places and only in relation to metrics.

Regards,
Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:40 PM
To: 'Ugo Corda'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion


This is a classic example, where some means to specify semantics behavior
will help.
The fact that this issue came up in WSDL makes me think that perhaps
we should at least entertain the notion within WSA. Defining semantics, of
course,
is a hard problem.

We discussed this issue in today's RTF meeting.
A "mild" and currently existing solution  (in B2B) to the problem is to
"enable
service agreements."
I.e., "semantic equivalence defn. of functional behavior" translates to
"WSA will enable service agreements among service providers and service
requesters"
And then assume semantics will be taken care through agreements between the
parties involved.

Cheers,

-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   



-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:29 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion


As I was reading the just published WSDL first Working Draft, I found that a
similar issue came up in the context of multiple ports of same portType
appearing under the same service (see 3.10, second bullet). This issue
(issue-multiple-ports-in-service-semantics) is still open and it is
described in 3.10 as follows:

"What are the semantics of multiple ports of same portType appearing in a
<service>?
During the June F2F discussions of this topic we agreed to leave the
question of precise semantics for this as an open issue. "

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:08 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion




From the discussions so far in this thread, is there a consensus
that "though defining semantic equivalence of functional behavior is an
interesting idea,
it is very ill defined to be considered a requirement of Web Service
Architecture"

Thanks,

-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   



-----Original Message-----
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:46 AM
To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion



I think it's best if we concentrate on developing the reference architecture
as "job No. 1" rather than try to reach conclusion on the extent to which
semantic inferences are integral.

The industry really needs guidance on what a web service is and isn't, and
what is and is not included in a Web services architecture that does more
than the basics.

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:07 PM
To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:18 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
> 
> 
> The bottom line: avoid phrasing the question in terms of equivalence, 
> instead phrase the question in terms of `have I heard of this name 
> before'?

My bottom line is 

> >> concepts like semantic equivalence that
> >> could create expectations well beyond what Web Services can actually 
> >> deliver today.

I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing and using technologies using "a graph
of concepts that a web service provider  publishes to describe his or her
service. A client applies a matching test to that graph -- which might
include getting references from other graphs -- to see if the graph is
congruent with his desired service."  Maybe I'm not looking in the right
places, but I just don't see that in the real world of web services today.  

Thus, it is IMHO inappropriate to *require* the WSA to accomodate ideas
which *may* prove powerful, until their practical value has been
demonstrated.  The W3C -- to bang one of my favorite drums, sorry -- is most
successful when working to standardize practice, and least successful when
trying to do computer science by committee.  I would be very happy to
incorporate field-tested semantic inference technology into the WSA, but I
can't agree to require it based on the current state of the art.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 20:57:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:01 GMT