RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope o f WS A for the document

I cannot attend the telecon, but I think I have made it clear that I
feel strongly about preserving the early bound scenarios that may not
involve a formal XML definition of the interface.
 
Beyond that, my opinions about your questions are:
- WSA-Compliant seems better because ebXML certainly uses XML but is
presumably not going to be WSA-Compliant.
- I think that an actual realization of a machine processable interface
description should be optional.
- I think the WS is the agent and it has an interface, but I'm not too
excited about this distinction.  I trust the people who are more precise
about these things to keep this stuff straight.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:14 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope
o f WS A for the document


 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
	Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:43 AM
	To: Champion, Mike
	Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and
the scope o f WS A for the document
	
	

	I for one had the same thought, a Web service *has an*
interface, it is 
	not an "is a" relationship in my book. 
	 

It sounds to me like this is another issue we should discuss today in
trying to filet the "what is a Web service" trout.  So, the major points
of discussion about the proposed definition from the editors seem to be:
 
- What should we call a WSA-ish "Web service"?  "XML WS?"
"WSA-compliant WS?" other?
- How formal / machine processable must a WSA-ish WS description be?  
- Is a WS an interface to some service, or does the WS have an XML
interface?
 
It would be good if people who feel strongly about any of these issues
were to get their arguments on the virtual table  before the telcon.