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

RE: Some proposed definitions of Web Service

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:10:48 -0700
Message-ID: <BD52C6379806D51188DD00508BEEC96C012A0F2D@mail.contivo.com>
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org



>> 1. It's far more important for us to spend our time focusing on the 
>> properties of our architecture than on either a one-paragraph definition
of 
>> "Web service" or what we should call our architecture.
> I agree.   Furthermore, . . .

From the length of the discussion and follow on email, I would say
that it is very important. What we are discussing seems to be much
more than a paragraph, but rather the overall goals of the architecture
document.

If we can not agree at this fundamental level, then I am not sure we
can ever expect to reach consensus on any significant portion of the
document.



> 3. I think our Chairs made an excellent suggestion for moving forward:
list 
> potential services and have the group decide if they're in scope or out of

> scope ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0203.html
) 
> for the WSA.  I think the list is a good way to collect candidates for 
> consideration.

> from the cited email:
 The chairs' suggestion is for people to propose one or more constraints
like
 this with a paragraph or so of description for each ... and to debate
 whether each is necessary for a service to be in-scope.

Does the list started at [1] help? It is what the chairs asked for.
If not, why not?

DaveH

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0231.html 



-----Original Message-----
From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 4:07 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: Mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com
Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of Web Service



Roger Cutler wrote:
>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 agree.   Furthermore, . . .


2. Our existing definition "Web service" is not perfect, but it's good 
enough for glossary purposes for the time being.  We might consider MINOR 
wordsmithing tweaks at our F2F, but NOT on email, because these email 
threads tend to quickly diverge out of control and become unproductive.

3. I think our Chairs made an excellent suggestion for moving forward: list 
potential services and have the group decide if they're in scope or out of 
scope ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0203.html ) 
for the WSA.  I think the list is a good way to collect candidates for 
consideration.


-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 19:16:20 GMT

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