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

RE: Web Services Definition and XML

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:34:31 -0600
Message-ID: <3B286631A9CFD1118D0700805F6F9F5A066F868D@hou281-msx1.chevron.com>
To: "'Krishna Sankar'" <ksankar@cisco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
I do not understand the use of the word "artifact" here.  I looked the word
up in a dictionary and confirmed that it usually has the connotation of
something that is left over after something primary has died.  (Loosely
speaking).  Even if "artifact" has some highly technical meaning of which I
am unaware, I think it would be better to use a word that is easier to
understand.  I would try to suggest one, but I'm not getting the distinction
I think you are making by not using the word "message".

Along more or less the same stylistic lines, I agree with the comments Mark
Baker made
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0062.html) about
using the term API.  Although technically the term might be accurate,
nonetheless it carries with it a bunch of associations, which Mark documents
clearly, that I don't think are really appropriate for this purpose.  It
seems to me, as Mark suggests, that "interface" or "machine processable
interface" are both better.

-----Original Message-----
From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 6:09 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Web Services Definition and XML


	I can live with web services *requiring* XML. In fact, then many of
the abstracted definitions, related to "standards based" gets replaced by
XML and thus make them more concrete.

	Couple of questions :

	1.	Do we also include some form of "binary XML" if it ever
happens ? i.e.
we assume binary and text XML
	2.	Do we need to be specific about SOAP ? or Are we Ok with any
XML based
transport or more precisely any transport which carries XML ?
	3.	Have the same question on the definition, description and
discovery. Are
we going to say XML based D3 ?

	Then how does this sound (again based on definitions by
Steve,James,Mark,Heather, ...) ? (With Heather's rule-of-thumb/best practice
of taking a deeeeeep breath)

	"A web service is a software application identified by a URI, whose
interfaces and binding are capable of being defined, described & discovered
by XML artifacts and supports direct interactions with other software
applications using XML based messages via internet-based protocols"

Couple of observations :

1.	Definition and description could be one and the same, could be
2.	The D3 (Definition, description and discovery) are based on
and bindings.
	Do we need to add other attributes ?
3.	The direct interactions are XML messages over internet protocols,
after the "first contact" other protocols (RMI,COM, messaging, ...) would be


 | -----Original Message-----
 | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
 | Behalf Of David Orchard
 | Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:23 PM
 | To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
 | Subject: Web Services Definition and XML
 | I wanted to discuss a specific aspect of Web Services definition on a  |
separate thread, particularly the use of XML.  |  | If one takes a look at
the charter of the Web Services Architecture group  | [1], the word XML is
the 4th word in the text.  The first 7 sentences  | mention XML 7 times.
I'm counting as one the XML, XML  | Namespaces, and XML  | Schema fragment.
|  | Further, the 2nd goal is "The set of technologies identified  | must be
based  | on XML. ".  | The 6th bulleted goal is "The framework proposed must
support the kind of  | extensibility actually seen on the Web: disparity of
document formats and  | protocols used to communicate, mixing of XML
vocabularies using XML  | namespaces, development of solutions in a
distributed  | environment without a  | central authority, etc. "...  |  |
The charter seems extremely clear that web services must be  | based upon
XML.  |  | Now I'm a person that leans towards sometimes re-interpreting  |
charters, but  | I draw the line in the sand on this one.  I believe that
the Web Services  | definition MUST make explicit reference to XML.  Perhaps
the  | actual bits on  | the wire don't have to be XML - like using SSL or
GZIP - but the  | basis for  | the inputs and outputs of the service sure
have to be XML or a well  | understood transformation.  I also include a
packaging of XML  | into something  | like MIME or DIME as being XML based.
|  | Like I argued for URIs, I will also argue for XML in our  | definition.
This  | is a show-stopper.  |  | Cheers,  | Dave  | [1]
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:34:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:54 UTC