Re: should web services be strictly stateless accessible thru browser and RDFying HTML etc...

Sateesh,

Thanks for the comments. Please see below.

Cheers,

Chris-as-wg-member-not-chair

Narahari, Sateesh wrote:

> Reading thru the requirements doc, I have few questions and one comment!
> 
> D-AC011.1.5 statelessness
> 
> which comes from design principles of the current web,
> 
> Does it indicate that web services can not contain state?.


statelessness != no managed state. clearly there is state on the
web. rather, statelessness refers to the characteristics of the
underlying infrastructure, and its architecture, as having no
direct dependency on the state of the resources with which it
interacts.


> 
> and 
> 
> D-AC011.1.17 User can use browser to interact.
> 
> which states that user can use a browser to interact with a web service.
> Does it mean that every web service shall have a UI part to it?.


not necessarily. it says 'can', not MUST, which implies that as a CSF,
access to a Web Service via a browser interface would be a
"good thing(tm)". If the architecture precludes this, that might
be considered an artificial separation of the web information space
which some consider to be a "bad thing".


> 
> If so, the definition may be incorrect:
> 
> A Web service is a software application identified by a URI, whose
> interfaces and binding are capable of being defined, described and
> discovered by XML artifacts and supports direct interactions with other
> software applications using XML based messages via internet-based protocols


As it says in the WD, the definition is a work in progress which the WG will
reconsider once we've gotten a better handle on what the requirements
are.

	"The Working Group has jointly come to agreement on the following
	working definition:"
         ^^^^^^^


> 
> 
> D-AC011.1.22 RDF models for technologies produced.
> 
> This one is plain wrong, IMO. design principles of the existing web does not
> use RDF models for technologies produced.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Sateesh 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 13:01:32 UTC