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

RE: Late binding

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 13:31:21 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E403735B92@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 3:06 PM
> To: bytecode@Phreaker.net; Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Late binding
> 
> Let's please focus on what exists today with 
> repect to Web services (I mean can we all please at least 
> agree to confine the debate to what's already in widespread 
> use and how it might best evolve) and focus on the use cases 
> for Web services (and debate how, if at all, principles of 
> Web architecture as articulated by REST might apply to those 
> use cases).

Strongly agree. We need a lot of discipline and focus right now to nail down
the requirements, agree on the outline of an architecture document, and get
to work filling in the boxes and arrows.    Both "the Web" and SOAP are now
a reality, and we need to focus on how to make them work together, learn
from each other, and leverage each others' strengths.  I think it's
important to discuss very SPECIFIC ways to do this, and when we find threads
drifting off into abstract philosophy, to move them to some other list.
[The XML-DEV folks love abstract philosophy almost to a fault :~)  ]

As I understand where this thread has come from (I was travelling for almost
two weeks and may have lost it, sorry) Mark wants a requirement that all
web services define a set of "a priori" operations that potential users can
assume to exist. I think it's safe to characaterize the WG's reaction as
"interested, but not convinced."  Thus, I don't think we should REQUIRE
ourselves to define a WSA that insists on a priori operations, but it's
still an open issue for how we ultimately define the WSA.

My suggestion to the REST advocates (and the Semantic Web advocates, for
that matter) is to let us finalize the requirements document without as
strong a commitment to these philosophies as you might like, but to work on
concrete demonstrations/implementations of the usage scenarios that will
convince us to adopt your points of view in the final WSA.  In other words,
as Eric said, lets focus on what really works in practice rather than on
what should work in theory, and agree to be convinced by practical
demonstrations.  
Received on Sunday, 30 June 2002 15:32:03 GMT

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