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: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:39:51 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817DE2@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
I'm sorry -- my loose phrasing here caused a fairly lengthy and, to me
confusing, off-line discussion.  Perhops I meant "standard Web
protocols"?  I had in mind things like HTTP, XML, SOAP and so on.  I am
not an expert in CORBA but I personally do not consider it a standard
Web protocol -- probably because I believe that a lot of security people
have a considerable problem with allowing it to go through firewalls,
and that doesn't sound like the Web to me.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:37 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope
o fWS A for the document


define "on the web" ?

	-----Original Message-----
	From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cutler, Roger
(RogerCutler)
	Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:29 PM
	To: Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and
the scope o fWS A for the document
	
	
	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 Monday, 21 April 2003 10:40:24 GMT

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