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

RE: Back to Requirements (was RE: Web Service Definition [Was

From: Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:54:29 +0100
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NEBBJGHENMLKIPMPDOPNEEBGCIAA.stefano.pogliani@sun.com>
I think this discussion, trying to make a concise definition
of what a w/s is (or should be...), looks like trying to
define how the result of a building activity looks like
before having defined the requirements and the properties
of what we are going to build. 

"words", in this sense, may have quite different meanings
for different readers and the same definition risks to mean
different things to different people.

/stefano

P.S.	As to "interface" or "interfaces", I do not think that
	the issue is around "an interface corresponds to an URI".
	We are trying to define an architecture for w/s; for that
	matter, the same w/s can be described in multiple ways,
	according to the accents and the paradigms.
	The fact that a w/s finally incarnates in a URI does
	not mean that there could be different interfaces for that,
	imho.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
> Sent: 06 March 2002 07:34
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Back to Requirements (was RE: Web Service Definition [Was
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> 	I think I might have been the one to add "interfaces" in the
> definition, in one of my amendments
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0071.html as "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".
> 
> 	Frankly, at that time I hadn't thought thru the significance of
> the single interface per URI; my motive was to mean *all* the interfaces
> offered by a web service. But if we say web service will have interface
> defined by a unique URL, the singular form (interface) might be OK.
> 
> Cheers
> 
>  | -----Original Message-----
>  | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
> On
>  | Behalf Of Mark Baker
>  | Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:04 PM
>  | To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)"
>  | Cc: chris.ferris@sun.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>  | Subject: Re: Back to Requirements (was RE: Web Service Definition
> [Was
>  | 
>  | > Why is it critical that a web service have only one interface?  I
> don't
>  | know
>  | > of any mechanism by which there could be more than one, but what
> would
>  | be
>  | > the problem with that if someone figured out how to do it?
>  | 
>  | Because the "Web way" to do this is to have a different URI for each
>  | interface.  That is, if we had some chunk of software that had both
> an
>  | operational interface and an administrative interface, we'd give a
> URI
>  | to each.  Of course, this design pattern (can't recall the name) has
>  | also been used by other component systems in the past, such as COM (I
>  | believe).
>  | 
>  | I'm just wondering if this was a case of "why not support multiple
>  | interfaces?!", "we definitely need it because ...", or "oops, hit the
>  | 's' key". 8-)
>  | 
>  | MB
>  | --
>  | Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
>  | Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
>  | http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 03:51:03 GMT

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