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

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

From: Vinoski, Stephen <steve.vinoski@iona.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:17:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4A31A61D72604FAF84C29C8EA28481189446@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Joseph Hui" <jhui@digisle.net>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
No, I don't believe we have consensus that D&D needs to be in the
definition. Mark summed it up perfectly in
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Feb/0191.html>.

--steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:56 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> 
> 
> By now IMHO we the WG have made the progress that D&D ought to be
> in the def.  (Have we not?  I don't want to be presumptuous here.)
> So the issue to be settled is whether D&D is already accounted for
> in URI.
> 
> In my view URI is for addressability.  A globally unique ID offers
> no intrinsic value to a resource's discovery.  E.g. there's no way
> johny, seeking to buy books, can discover a book seller by
> inferring from a URI like http://www.amazon.com.
> Mark's made some good points; yet I find the 
> "D&D-accounted-for-in-URI"
> argument too tenuous.  Withi the web context, D&D is an integral
> (as Sandeep put it) part of WS.  It's not a property that can be
> assumed by default, thus calling it out is warranted.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Joe Hui
> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> =========================================
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 6:53 AM
> > To: Sandeep Kumar
> > Cc: Vinoski Stephen; Joseph Hui; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> > 
> > 
> > Sandeep,
> > 
> > > If D&D are not an integral part of a Web Service defintion,
> > 
> > I was claiming that discoverability *is* an integral part of the
> > definition.  It's just already accounted for by defining that a Web
> > service be URI identifiable.
> > 
> > I know this is a bit different than some Web service work 
> people have
> > already done, but this is (IMO) one of those times where our 
> > mandate to
> > be integrated with Web architecture effects our work.
> > 
> > > pl help me define
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Sorry, I'm unclear what you're asking.
> > 
> > MB
> > -- 
> > Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> > http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 14:18:28 GMT

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