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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:32:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203012032.PAA02608@markbaker.ca>
To: michael.mahan@nokia.com
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Mark,
> 
> I respectfully disagree that discovery is accounted for by defining that a Web service is uri identifiable. Uri identifiable enables accessibility, but is not sufficient to enable discovery. Discovery means "to make known or visible"[1] and hence is the process of acquiring the resource identifier and optionally, deciding whether it is a resource worth binding. 

This is a good point.  I think I may have been lose with my words
before.

What a URI provides is "discoverability", the ability to be discovered.
It is clearly not a discovery mechanism itself, which I would define to
be a means by which one becomes aware of a URI (though URI resolution
is clearly a discovery mechanism).

I think it is critical that a Web service be discoverable (which being
identified by a URI provides), and that an architecture support their
discovery.

Looking back over the comments in this thread, I believe that this
would appear to be a point of concensus.  Am I right?

As for description, as I said before, I consider that a no-op from
the point of view of a definition of a Web service; all things are
describable.  But if it would help us reach concensus, I would accept
the addition of "a Web service must be describable" to the working
definition that Steve and I have discussed.

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 15:28:50 GMT

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