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 19:56:38 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817DD3@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>, "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "Www-Ws-Arch@W3. Org" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Well, OK -- but I'm uncomfortable with my inference (it may not be what
you intended) that it's only a Web service if it is conformant to some
W3C specification.  The reason for this is that it is very clear to me
that ebXML, in which the interface definitions are not WSDL, are in fact
Web services.  They satisfy every reasonable criterion I can think of --
they have formal descriptions, they are based on XML, they are
app-to-app, etc, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:33 PM
To: Ugo Corda; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Www-Ws-Arch@W3. Org
Subject: RE: Is This a Web Service?


	-----Original Message-----
	From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
	Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:54 PM
	To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Www-Ws-Arch@W3. Org
	Subject: RE: Is This a Web Service?
	>I still would like to get some sense of whether we can agree
about the HTTP GET of an image.
	The XML Protocol WG has been discussing the idea of considering
binary attachments as a logical part of a SOAP message infoset. If this
concept is taken further forward in that WG, it might very well happen
that the HTTP GET of the binary image you are talking about will just be
correct SOAP 1.2 (after applying the Web Method Feature). At that point
there would be no doubt about it being a Web service.
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 20:57:22 UTC

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