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: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:35:01 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817DE1@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I personally thought that we were making more progress on this in the
following two messages.  The first lists some things that probably are
and are not Web services, the second has some proto-definitions that I
think have  a lot of merit.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0118.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0127.html

I do indeed see the dilemma Mike discusses in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0187.html.
However, I don't see any problem with defining the term Web services
itself in a way that is fairly general and can accommodate development
of the technology and then specializing to a more restricted domain for
the reference architecture.

I do not want to make inclusion of ebXML a requirement, but I think it
is likely to come along naturally.  If it doesn't that's fine with me,
but I also do not want to go into contortions in order to exclude it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 9:59 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the
call toda y





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:46 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the 
> call toda y
> 
> Could someone summarize the current proposal for the
> definition?  I've kind of lost track of where it stands now.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0182.html

That seems like a "friendly amendment" to what I started this particular
thread with. 

I personally would also find something like your wording " WSDL [is] a
specialized form of an XML Schema typically used for the description,
but I think it's also fair to say that other schema formats could also
do the job (given XML's extensibility, flexibility, and
transformability)" acceptable.
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 10:35:27 GMT

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