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: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 19:29:13 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E026EF5D9@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
I think that interacting via standard protocols on the Web might be a
bit better.  Would CORBA still be in the stew then?
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:25 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope
o fWS A for the document


 
 
In an earlier mail Mike suggested:
"A Web service is an interface to an executable software agent that is
designed to be used by another software agent. A Web service is
identified by a URI, and has a definition in a language sufficient to
describe the interface to developers of client agents. A software agent
interacts with a Web service in the manner prescribed by the formal
definition, using standard protocols."

Using this defintion, CORBA objects are web services! They can have URIs
(added about three years ago), they are defined using IDL which is
sufficient to for developing client agents and they interact using
standard protocols (iiop).

I am not for one minute suggesting that CORBA objecst should be in the
set, but without a better definition they will be and i'm not sure what
use that is.

Anyone remember business objects? Nice marketing term but no one could
provide a techical defnition whereby if one were given something you can
tell whether it was one or not. I'd hate to see web services go down
this route.

Martin.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
	Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:03 AM
	To: Colleen Evans
	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 fWS A for the document
	
	

	WSA-compliant is way too strong a term IMO. Why can't we just
call it a Web Service? 
	
	Christopher Ferris
	Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
	email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
	phone: +1 508 234 3624 
	
	www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 04/17/2003 12:20:55 PM:
	
	> 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 20:29:39 GMT

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