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

RE: Is This a Web Service?

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:51:39 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E026EF5AA@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
That's a good approach, but I think that there is a place for the bottom
up approach, too.  What is your gut feeling -- is my example a Web
service or not?  It's intended on both sides to be an application
communicating with an application across the Web, but it does not use
SOAP or WSDL.  It does, however, commicate via a standards-based
protocol, and I guess a formal definition is possible, although we did
not do that.  That is, the interface is well defined and not mutating
all over the place.
I think it's a Web service, but I'm willing to accept the idea that it's
too primitive to pass muster.  Sort of a proto-Web service, perhaps,
struggling towards birth as a true blue WS but not quite evolved enough.
I guess I mixed metaphors, there.  Sorry.
-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:45 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Jim Webber; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
Subject: RE: Is This a Web Service?

Here's my $0.02c. 

Before trying to define a web service would it make sense to describe
(and even, perhaps, agree) the features and properties of what we think
is a web service. Here's a few that I can think of for starters ...

1. Standards based. The web service uses a well defined and limited set
of standards to help ensure interoperability between implementations
built using different technology.

2. Application-to-Application. Web services facilitate the direct
interoperable communication between applications using messages.

3. Formal definitions. A formal definition of how to interact with a web
service exists that allows an application to build an interoperable
solution without needing any further information.

4. XML Based. Uses XML to specify: a) definitions of services and b)
metadata about messages sent between applications. 

5. SOAP based. SOAP is used to record metadata about messages. 

I know this list is NOT complete, it almost certainly is not correct and
I am absolutely certain that not everyone will agree with it ;) ... for
example must web services be interoperable and standards based? I think
so, but I'm not sure everyone else would agree.

So is this an approach that would help us come to a proper resolution? 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]

Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 8:39 AM 
To: Jim Webber; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
Subject: RE: Is This a Web Service? 

I would be a lot happier about requiring SOAP than WSDL because that 
would include ebXML, and I would be extremely unhappy if we put that 
outside the entire WS fence.  I still think my simple example is a Web 
service, but would be willing to join a consensus that it is not.  I 
don't think it's a real big deal either way. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Webber [mailto:jim.webber@arjuna.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 10:24 AM 
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
Subject: RE: Is This a Web Service? 


> Do other people think that if it doesn't use WSDL it's not a 
> Web service?  I personally don't like this at all. 

Nor do I, but then I have the seemingly contrarian view that SOAP is 
implicitly involved :-) (and not necessarily anything to do with the 

While I can appreciate that this group does not necessarily have to have

a commercially-facing outlook, we are at risk of marginalisation if the 
architecture fragments into X different flavours of Web services. 

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 12:52:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:06 UTC