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

RE: Definition for a Web Service

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:42:54 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817F45@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

We have -- and I personally think that this is unfortunate but it does
represent a clear, consensus-driven decision by the WG that I accept,
albeit reluctantly -- limited the scope of what we are willing to call
Web services and discuss in our architecture to thingies that are
described by WSDL and use SOAP -- as you can see in the definition.
That is, as far as we are concerned thingies described (only) by text
documents or DAML (unless DAML is somehow integrated into WSDL, which I
understand may not be an unreasonable expectation) are not Web services.
This was a highly contentious issue and the resolution of it was so
difficult that I think it would take some sort of dramatic change in the
situation to convince people in the WG to reopen it.  As I said, I don't
like this resolution, but I would like reopening the issue a WHOLE LOT
LESS!

That was not, however, the thrust of your message.  I personally agree
that Web services are "important" resources and, for that reason, should
be identified by a URI.  I do not know how many others on the WG would
also agree, but I would guess at least some.  Or at least would agree
that "it sure would be nice" if Web services were identified by a URI.

It is my perception that the WG is, in effect, unwilling to do things
that are not compatible with what the WS-Desc WG is doing/has done, and
is also unwilling to tell the WS-Desc WG what to do.  I would be very
surprised, however, if anyone on the WSA-WG would actually object
violently if the WS-Desc WG were somehow to decide to use URI's to
identify Web services.

Obviously the comments above are my personal take on the situation ...
Another member of the WG might view things quite differently and I am in
no way a spokesman for the WG.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:02 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Definition for a Web Service


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).

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>;
<www-ws-arch@w3.org>
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 15:43:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:22 GMT