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

Re: what is discovery - One concrete proposal

From: Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:51:35 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF85579649.B2E1D61F-ON85256C4E.006711C3@us.ibm.com>





+1 to Dave

+1 to Chris - to add my two cents on how I translated the first axiom
      - Services are described with WDSL (i.e. a formal document)
      - In the act of publishing and discovering, the message/artifact you
send to publish, what you send to do a find, and what you get back from a
find, may not be WSDL documents.

Heather Kreger
Web Services Lead Architect
STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
kreger@us.ibm.com
919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572


Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS@w3.org on 10/10/2002 08:20:54 AM

Sent by:    www-ws-arch-request@w3.org


To:    Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
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 14:52:11 GMT

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