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

Re: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope o fWS A for the document

From: Colleen Evans <cevans@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:20:55 -0600
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <3E9ED467.CB7478EB@sonicsoftware.com>
WSA-Compliant seems a bit overloaded for what we're defining.   How
about WSA-Defined or WSA-Specified?
Colleen

"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" wrote:

>  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.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 12:17:39 GMT

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