W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Is This a Web Service?

From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:48:38 -0400
To: James M Snell <jasnell@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Message-id: <D9B28173-6EC2-11D7-8E54-000393C53568@sun.com>


On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 05:29  PM, James M Snell wrote:
> Custom Web Service: Uses an interface description (e.g. WSDL), but all
> other WS specs are optional
> [...]
> Internet Web Service: Uses an interface description (WSDL) + standard
> internet protocols (e.g. HTTP).  All other things (e.g. SOAP) are
> optional.
>
> Interoperable Web Service: Uses an interface description (WSDL) + 
> standard
> internet protoocls (e.g. HTTP) and SOAP.  Generally talking about WS-I
> basic profile conformance.

(1) This taxonomy is incomplete: we also need to address the
case of SOAP-over-something-other-than-HTTP.

(2) I think we need a distinct term for the explicitly SOAPless case. 
 From the
above list, the best I can do is "Internet Web Service but without 
SOAP". It's hard to
talk about composability and interoperability without that one.

My own preference is for a high-level split between SOAPY web services 
and
SOAPLESS web services. (I'll let the marketing types come up with 
better names.)
The former are compatible with a variety of message transport 
mechanisms (HTTP,
JMS, email, etc.), which are composable according to the SOAP model;
HTTP need not be involved at all. The latter use HTTP and may well be 
RESTful.
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 17:50:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:17 GMT