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: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:10:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4A31A61D72604FAF84C29C8EA28481189457@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Human interaction is mentioned because traditionally that's what the web
is about. Web Services represents an evolution from a browser-to-web
server model to an application-to-application interaction model --
that's really what makes them so important.

--steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 12:49 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> 
> 
> steve,
> 
> 	Good point - I did miss that. I did read it as denying 
> human interactions,
> my mistake.
> 
> 	My amendment still stands - why mention human 
> interaction at all.
> 
> 	One, as a service, would implement a capability (either 
> by proxing or
> aggregating or by directly performing stuff), define and 
> describe it and
> wait ... It really doesn't care who on the other end sends a 
> message (of
> course, the message would be based on IP), but when it 
> receives a message,
> do some processing and would send back a result or do 
> appropriate stuff in
> case of other interaction patterns.
> 
> 	As a side note, the implicit assumption is that, by 
> defining and describing
> the interfaces (and bindings) in a standard way, we are 
> achieving discovery.
> 
> cheers
> 
>  | -----Original Message-----
>  | From: Vinoski, Stephen [mailto:steve.vinoski@iona.com]
>  | Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:14 AM
>  | To: Krishna Sankar
>  | Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>  | Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
>  |
>  |
>  | Note that the definition does not deny direct human involvement. It
>  | states only that direct human involvement is not required, 
> which is not
>  | the same as saying that it's not allowed.
>  |
>  | --steve
>  |
>  | > -----Original Message-----
>  | > From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
>  | > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 12:08 AM
>  | > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>  | > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
>  | >
>  | >
>  | > 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 22:13:20 GMT

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