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

RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the call toda y

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:22:57 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9081180@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Dave Hollander" <dmh@contivo.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

> How is that not "the first thing" and choices 1 and 2?

All the choices you list are based on the premise "our definition of Web Services is different and presumeably broader than the set of constraints/principles/defnitions defined by our architecture". From that premise you start mentioning two "things" in all your choices. 

I am not at all convinced that we need to talk about two things. In fact, my point yesterday was that we only need to talk about one thing.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Hollander [mailto:dmh@contivo.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 1:49 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the
> call toda y
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge the benefits of discussion and discourse and 
> disagreement.
> I prefer those things to be driving toward understandin--then when
> understanding is reached, argreement or disagreement is founded.
> 
> 
> > Dave, you do not seem to acknowledge the position I (and a few other
> people) 
> > took yesterday on this subject, i.e. that our definition of 
> Web services 
> > coincide with what is included in our architecture.
> 
> How is that not "the first thing" and choices 1 and 2?
> 
> 
> 
> My posting was discussing your statement:
> > I have some serious doubts that, by giving a definition of 
> > Web services that does not conflict directly with what ebXML 
> > has today (e.g. not requiring
> > WSDL), we will automatically comprehend ebXML in our architecture.
> > 
> Clearly, at least to me, option 3 would allow definition that does
> not conflict nor does it require explict inclusion into the defined
> architecture. Said differently, I *could* define web services in an
> inclusive way and create an architecture in a more exclusive way.
> 
> DaveH
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 2:28 PM
> To: Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the
> call toda y
> 
> 
> Dave, you do not seem to acknowledge the position I (and a 
> few other people)
> took yesterday on this subject, i.e. that our definition of 
> Web services
> coincide with what is included in our architecture. 
> 
> I know it's not the same position you took, but that's why we 
> have many
> people in the same group, i.e. to make the discussion more 
> interesting and
> less uniform ;-)
> 
> Ugo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Hollander [mailto:dmh@contivo.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:44 PM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the
> > call toda y
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ugo, you do not seem to acknowledge a difference that we 
> talked about
> > yesterday.
> > 
> > One thing is: 
> > 	...included in our architecture
> > 
> > This is a very active act that would require the efforts 
> you outline.
> > 
> > 
> > A potentially different thing is: 
> > 	...included in our definition of Web Services
> > 
> > This simply means that our definition of Web Services
> > is different and presumeably broader than the set of 
> > constraints/principles/defnitions defined by our 
> > architecture. In essence, it implies that 
> > our architecture defines some "new thing". 
> > 
> > Yet another related and not orthogonal choice we face is
> > a naming choice:
> > 
> > 	1) should we use the same name for both: Web Services
> > 
> > 	2)  should we name the "new thing": Web Services
> > 	2a) should we name things that are not "new things": ?YYY?
> > 
> > 	3)  should we name the "new thing": ?XXX?
> > 	3a) should we name things that are not new things: Web Services
> > 
> > 
> > My preference is stongly toward 3. With XXX being XWS.
> > A canidate for YYY (choice 2a) that made sense to me was: SOA
> > Dave
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:37 PM
> > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the
> > call toda y
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > I don't know if this will cover ebXML as within the
> > > scope of the WSA.  I'll guess that is will ... or at least 
> > will allow the
> > > ebXML folks to rigorously define how they differ from WSA 
> v1.0, and
> > perhaps
> > > WSA v 2.0 and ebXML v. whatever could be architecturally 
> > compatible down
> > the
> > > road.  I'm leery of taking ebXML compatibility on as a 
> requirement,
> > however.
> > 
> > I have some serious doubts that, by giving a definition of 
> > Web services that
> > does not conflict directly with what ebXML has today (e.g. 
> > not requiring
> > WSDL), we will automatically comprehend ebXML in our architecture.
> > 
> > ebXML invokes a set of concept (e.g. CPP/CPAs, business semantics,
> > repository, etc.) that so far have only been minimally 
> > addressed by this
> > group, if not at all. Doing a serious work of comprehending 
> > ebXML in our
> > architectural scope would involve, in my mind, carefully 
> > analyzing all those
> > ebXML-specific concepts, compare them with our current scope, 
> > and (most
> > likely) modify our scope and architectural model to include 
> > them. I suspect
> > this goes well beyond what this group is chartered for at this time.
> > 
> > Missing this type of rigorous work, the attempt of making 
> > ebXML part of our
> > Web services architecture by way of relaxing the Web services 
> > definition
> > looks to me mostly like a marketing gimmick.
> > 
> > Ugo
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 17:23:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT