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

RE: what is discovery - One concrete proposal

From: Abbie Barbir <abbieb@nortelnetworks.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:53:21 -0400
Message-ID: <87609AFB433BD5118D5E0002A52CD75403D1C4F7@zcard0k6.ca.nortel.com>
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
+1
 
I do concur with Christopher 
 
abbie
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:21 AM
To: Dave Hollander
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: what is discovery - One concrete proposal



+1 

However, I'm not sure that I concur, or am quite comfortable, with the first
axiom: 

> 1) discovery need not rely upon formal documents. 

I think that I understand the motivation here, but I also think that we
should 
make it clear that the architecture relies on WSDL as the basic form of
description 
that is "discovered" in the exchange of service description details. 

Cheers, 

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624 

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 10/09/2002 02:18:49 PM:

> 
> 
> To try to get temporary closure on the discovery,triangle, 
> and cloud, let me try to state one position.  
> 
> Recommendation:
> 1. Leave it in the spec dract as is or ammended with axioms 
>    from below.
> 
> 2. Add an example where "discovery" is a trivial role because
>    there are two parties directly exchanging information that
>    is hardwired into the service.
> 
> 3. Label the node "Discovery Agencies"
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Discovery = exchange of the service description details necessary 
> to make a conncection.
> 
> Discovery Axioms: 
> 
> 1) discovery need not rely upon formal documents.
>  
> 2) discovery occurs regardless of when the discovered 
>     information is bound into the connection (early or late).
>  
> 3) discovery is discovery regardless if the provider or 
>     requestor does the advertising.
> 
> 4) discovery is discovery even if the data discovered was
>     already known. All that needs to be true is the potential
>     that the data *may* be different or new.
> 
> 5) discovery is discovery even if there are only two parties,
>     requestor and provider.
> 
> 
> I believe that "discovery", as defined above, exists as a 
> role in all of the scenarios that have been presented here.
> 
> So that leads to the question: is "discovery", as defined above,
> relevent enough to be included in our base architecture?
> 
> I believe discovery is relevent and should be in the
> base architecture for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. the distinction between hypertext and web services
>    web has hypertext links to create a network, web
>    services currently do not have a mechanism for defining
>    a newtwork.
> 
> 2. good for the "ilities" (scalability, reliability, etc)
> 
> 3. it always happens, just sometimes it is done outside
>    of the system.
> 
> 4. Most people expect to see it. If it is not there, our
>    audience will either be disappointed or will try to find
>    it. Either way confusion and mixed understanding will result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 12:54:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT