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

RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow's call

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:26:57 -0700
To: "'Mario Jeckle'" <mario@jeckle.de>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Cc: "'George Blanck'" <gsblanck@nyc.rr.com>, <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Message-ID: <002901c303d8$cd6a7070$6401a8c0@beasys.com>

huh?  There's at least one big Web services company that doesn't believe
that.  And this point raises perhaps the uselessness of this discussion.  We
do not have agreement on what is REQUIRED for something to be a Web service.
What are the constraints?  All we have so far is that it's gotta have a URI.
If it's not SOAP, not WSDL, not even XML, then there really isn't much else
there there.  Great, a URI.  But what next?  Our architecture won't provide
anything that is of use to developers, as the URI isn't nearly sufficient to
do something with.  At least with the Web, we could say things around REST
and how to interact.  But putting a whole bunch of "it could do this, and it
might be described using that, ..." doesn't really do any good.

> I'm not clear if the wording "Services" is appropriate here
> for the WSDL
> including layer. Doesn't this imply that there is no service without
> WSDL which is certainly untrue.

Until we come up with different names for different aspects/combinations of
Web services specs, IMO this discussion will continue to be trout bait.

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 01:24:40 UTC

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