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

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

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 21:07:52 -0800
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NABBJDOPDKGCDCNBNEDOCEKHHCAA.ksankar@cisco.com>
Hi,

	Two amendments :

	1.	What does the "through an application programming interface capable of
being described," buy us ? Why not just "capable of being described by
standard formats" ?

	2.	Why specifically deny direct human involvement ? Do we care who (or
what) interacts so long as the interactions are internet-based protocols ?

	IMHO,
	 "A web service is a software application or component identified by a URI,
whose interfaces and binding are capable of being described by standard
formats and supports direct interactions with other software applications or
components via internet-based protocols".

	As Heather says, OK, everyone can open fire now. :-)

cheers & have a nice weekend

 | -----Original Message-----
 | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
 | Behalf Of Vinoski, Stephen
 | Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:08 PM
 | To: James M Snell
 | Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
 | Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
 |
 |
 | OK, James, if we take your inputs along with those of Heather, Mark, and
 | others, and apply them to my original strawman definition including
 | Mark's amendment, we get:
 |
 | "A web service is a software application or component identified by a
 | URI that, through an application programming interface capable of being
 | described, supports direct interactions with other software applications
 | or components via internet-based protocols, where said interactions do
 | not require direct human involvement."
 |
 | Are we there? :-)
 |
 | --steve
 |
 |
 | > -----Original Message-----
 | > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com]
 | > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 6:21 PM
 | > To: Vinoski, Stephen
 | > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
 | > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
 | >
 | >
 | > Stephen,
 | >
 | > We actually are on the same page here.  We both seem to agree
 | > that yes,
 | > Web services can be described and discovered, but we disagree
 | > whether or
 | > not those properties need to be called out explicitly in the
 | > definition.
 | > You seem to be saying no, I'm saying yes they do.  The reason
 | > is the same
 | > as why we explicitly define Web resources as having unique URI
 | > identifiers.  Of course Web resources have identifiers,
 | > they're objects
 | > and all objects have identifiers -- of what use is it to
 | > explicitly call
 | > out that point?  The answer is that by stating the fact, we lay the
 | > groundwork for standardizing how those identifiers are created,
 | > represented, communicated, etc.  We're basically stating that Web
 | > resources need to have a standardized method of
 | > identification.  For Web
 | > Services, explicitly calling out description and discovery as
 | > properties
 | > of a Web service indicate that there needs to be standardized
 | > mechanisms
 | > for description and discovery -- regardless of whether or not
 | > every Web
 | > service actually implements those standards.  Because a Web
 | > Service can be
 | > described and discovered, the overall Web Services
 | > Architecture needs to
 | > take into account standardized mechanisms for description and
 | > discovery.
 | > I'm not saying we have to create such standards here, just
 | > acknowledge
 | > their existence and role.  Make sense?
 | >
 | > - James M Snell/Fresno/IBM
 | >     Web services architecture and strategy
 | >     Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
 | >     544.9035 TIE line
 | >     559.587.1233 Office
 | >     919.486.0077 Voice Mail
 | >     jasnell@us.ibm.com
 | >  Programming Web Services With SOAP, O'reilly & Associates, ISBN
 | > 0596000952
 | >
 | > ==
 | > Have I not commanded you?  Be strong and courageous.  Do not
 | > be terrified,
 | >
 | > do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you
 | > wherever you
 | > go.
 | > - Joshua 1:9
 | >
 | > To:     James M Snell/Fresno/IBM@IBMUS
 | > cc:
 | > Subject:        RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
 | >
 | >
 | >
 | > Given that you won't be able to prove it, let's look at it in a
 | > practical manner. Everything in the universe is both describable and
 | > discoverable. Therefore, speaking about D&D generally does not add any
 | > clarity to the definition. On the other hand, if you're speaking
 | > specifically about discovery services like UDDI and
 | > description services
 | > like WSDL, then that too is wrong, as I know of several web services
 | > already in production that use neither WSDL nor anything like UDDI.
 | >
 | > --steve
 | >
 | > > -----Original Message-----
 | > > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com]
 | > > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:57 PM
 | > > To: Vinoski, Stephen
 | > > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
 | > >
 | > >
 | > > 100% of all Web resources, including Web Services CAN be
 | > > described and
 | > > discovered.  The differentiating factor is HOW.  Every Web
 | > > service CAN be
 | > > discovered regardless of whether or not the Web service explicitly
 | > > supports a specific discovery mechanism.  Every Web service CAN be
 | > > decribed regardless of whether or not the Web service
 | > > explicity supports a
 | > > specific description mechanism.  You are right in that
 | > decription and
 | > > discovery alone do not distinguish Web services from other
 | > > types of web
 | > > resources, but that does not mean that the properties of
 | > > discoverability
 | > > and description are not part of the formal definition of a
 | > > Web service.
 | > >
 | > > - James M Snell/Fresno/IBM
 | > >     Web services architecture and strategy
 | > >     Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
 | > >     544.9035 TIE line
 | > >     559.587.1233 Office
 | > >     919.486.0077 Voice Mail
 | > >     jasnell@us.ibm.com
 | > >  Programming Web Services With SOAP, O'reilly & Associates, ISBN
 | > > 0596000952
 | > >
 | > > ==
 | > > Have I not commanded you?  Be strong and courageous.  Do not
 | > > be terrified,
 | > >
 | > > do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you
 | > > wherever you
 | > > go.
 | > > - Joshua 1:9
 | > >
 | > > To:     James M Snell/Fresno/IBM@IBMUS, "Joseph Hui"
 | > > <jhui@digisle.net>
 | > > cc:     <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
 | > > Subject:        RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
 | > >
 | > >
 | > >
 | > > > -----Original Message-----
 | > > > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com]
 | > > > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:21 PM
 | > > > To: Joseph Hui
 | > > > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
 | > > > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
 | > > >
 | > > >
 | > > > A Web Service must be defined as having the properties that
 | > > it can be
 | > > > decribed and discovered.  Both the Web service and it's
 | > > > description must
 | > > > be discoverable.
 | > >
 | > > No, and no. This thread of email already contain multiple
 | > explanations
 | > > of why.
 | > >
 | > > > Definition ==> A Web service can be described and discovered.
 | > >
 | > > As I've already explained using real-world examples, neither
 | > > of these is
 | > > necessarily true (other than the discovery via URI that Mark
 | > > mentioned).
 | > >
 | > > Neither discovery (as in UDDI-like services) nor description
 | > > distinguish
 | > > Web Services from prior art, nor are they found in 100% of
 | > > existing Web
 | > > Services systems. They are therefore not needed to define Web
 | > > Services.
 | > >
 | > > --steve
 | > >
 | > > >
 | > > > - James M Snell/Fresno/IBM
 | > > >     Web services architecture and strategy
 | > > >     Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
 | > > >     544.9035 TIE line
 | > > >     559.587.1233 Office
 | > > >     919.486.0077 Voice Mail
 | > > >     jasnell@us.ibm.com
 | > > >  Programming Web Services With SOAP, O'reilly & Associates, ISBN
 | > > > 0596000952
 | > > >
 | > > > ==
 | > > > Have I not commanded you?  Be strong and courageous.  Do not
 | > > > be terrified,
 | > > >
 | > > > do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you
 | > > > wherever you
 | > > > go.
 | > > > - Joshua 1:9
 | > > >
 | > > > Sent by:        www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
 | > > > To:     <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
 | > > > cc:
 | > > > 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 Sunday, 3 March 2002 00:08:32 GMT

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