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

Re: Definition for a Web Service

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:02:20 -0400
Message-ID: <010001c36033$3245f530$7101a8c0@TPX21>
To: "Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

I raised a discussion on the WS-Desc list suggesting that they really should
identify a Web service by a URI rather than just a Qname. I was a little
surprised by the resistence to such a concept. I got the sense that a lot of
people didn't understand what in fact the URI was meant to identify.

I don't know what the end decision on the discussion was. I believe it was
discussed at the last meeting.

But I do think that the architecture group should have some influence on the
discussion. If the architecture group believes that a Web service should be
named by a URI, then the WS-Desc team should provide a means to capture that
name in the WSDL description.

From my perspective, a Web service is an "important" resource, and as the
Web Architecture says, all "important" resources should have a URI. I also
expect that a Web service may be described by a variety of description
languages (WSDL, DAML, text documents, etc.) and so there ought to be a
means of referring to the Web service that doesn't depend on just one
description language (a URI derived from the wsdl:service Qname).


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>;
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Definition for a Web Service

> I think that this happened because of all the confusion about URI's and
> QNames.  As I understand it (and I am very willing to admit that I
> understand this imperfectly), just about everyone concerned would be
> VERY happy to say that Web services are identified by URI's -- except
> that currently in WSDL they are identified by a Qname -- which is not
> exactly a URI but can be mapped to a URI.  This, at the least, adds a
> layer of confusion to any conversation on this subject.  I think that
> the basic thinking was that the "Web-related standards" would lead one
> sort of inevitably to URI's, and that the detailed issues could be dealt
> with ... in the detailed sections, I guess.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:45 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Definition for a Web Service
> Thanks for the new draft; obviously, this is the result of a lot of
> efforts!
> Regarding the new definition for a Web Service: apart from being more
> specific (WSDL, SOAP, HTTP), which I like, the other major difference
> seems to be that a Web Service is no longer identified by a URI. Is this
> intentional? Shouldn't this be added back?
> <previousDefinition>
> A Web service is a software system identified by a URI [...].
> </previousDefinition>
> Comments?
> Jean-Jacques.
> Champion, Mike wrote:
> > Update from the W3C publication team:
> >
> > New WD of "Web Services Architecture" Document is available at :
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-ws-arch-20030808/
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 14:05:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:08 UTC