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

RE: Application Protocol Definition (was RE: Visibility (was Re: Intr oducing the Service Oriented Architec tural style ...

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:47:28 -0800
To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@us.ibm.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNIEFDDEAA.arkin@intalio.com>

James,

If I understand correctly protocols like WS-RM, ebXML TRP or RosettaNet RNIF
would fall under messaging protocols, and very specific protocols like
BTP/WS-Tx, UDDI/RSS, SAML, etc would fall under utility protocol.

I like the name 'utility protocol', thanks for suggesting it.

This still leaves us with 5 and 6, and I still have an uneasy filling about
using application protocol at level 6, since in many cases application
protocols refers to protocols like HTTP, FTP, SMTP.

What would be an example for a business protocol?

Is HTTP a messaging protocol since you can use it on its own, or a
communication protocol with WS-RM, ebXML, RN being messaging protocols using
that communicatio protocol?

arkin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:00 AM
> To: Burdett, David
> Cc: 'Assaf Arkin'; Burdett, David; Mark Baker; www-ws-arch@w3.org;
> www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Application Protocol Definition (was RE: Visibility (was
> Re: Intr oducing the Service Oriented Architec tural style ...
>
>
> Just my 2 cents thrown in from the spectator stands...
>
> I agree that "application protocol" is not the right term for the
> collection of "slightly more specialized but still general protocols".  I
> often refer to those as Utility Protocols rather than Application
> Protocols which should focus on the abstract business operations and data
> needing to be exchanged.
>
> The order I would recommend is:
>
> 1. Network Protocols
> 2. Communication Protocols
> 3. Messaging Protocols
> 4. Utility Protocols
>      a. Business Transaction Protocols
>      b. Discovery Protocol
>      c. Negotiation Protocol
>      .... <etc> ...
> 5. Business Protocols
> 6. Application Protocols
>
> - James Snell
>      IBM Emerging Technologies
>      jasnell@us.ibm.com
>      (559) 587-1233 (office)
>      (700) 544-9035 (t/l)
>      Programming Web Services With SOAP
>          O'Reilly & Associates, ISBN 0596000952
>
>      Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous.
>      Do not be terrified, do not be discouraged, for the Lord your
>      God will be with you whereever you go.    - Joshua 1:9
>
>
>
> "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
> Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> 02/27/2003 03:33 AM
>
> To
> "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>,
> "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
> cc
> www-ws-arch@w3.org
> bcc
>
> Subject
> Application Protocol Definition (was RE: Visibility (was Re: Intr oducing
> the Service Oriented Architec tural  style ...
>
>
>
>
>
> Arkin
>
> You said ...
>
> >>> This of course doesn't help much, because we've just introduced three
> different protocols, one described by HTTP, one described by WSDL and one
> described by WSCI (just as an example). Again as with synch/asynch, this
> is all a matter of applying a definition in the proper context.<<<
>
> It might not help, but it is real life. You do have multiple protocols
> operating in combination at different "layers", for example (not
> sure this
> list is complete or the names are right)
>
> 1. Network infrastructure protocols, e.g. TCP/IP
> 2. Communication protocols, e.g. HTTP
> 3. Messaging protocols, e.g. ebXML Messaging or WS-RM
> 4. Business protocols, e.g. Order placement protocol that defines
> sequence
> of exchange of business documents
>
> You can also have other more slightly more specialized but still general
> "protocols", e.g.
> 5. Two phase commit, e.g. Business Transaction Protocol
> 6. Discover protocol, e.g To discover a WSDL or Schema definition (REST
> can work well here)
> 7. Negotiation protocol, e.g. To negotiate which combination of protocols
> 1 through 4 to use in a specific instance
>
> ... we could probably go on ...
>
> The point is just calling some or all of these an "Application Protocol"
> is, IMHO, insufficiently precise.
>
> Do you think we should try and define these types of protocol and what
> they mean in more detail?
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:13 PM
> To: Mark Baker; Burdett, David
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented
> Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.
>
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:18:48AM -0800, Burdett, David wrote:
> > > <DB>We need to define what we mean by an "application" if you mean it
> is
> > > anything above the transport layer, then you are correct but
> > really I think
> > > the layers are typically: Operating System, App Server, "Web Services
> > > Middleware", Application.
>
> How about:
>
> Application - A program designed to assist in the performance of a
> specific
> task, such as word processing, accounting, or inventory management
>
> Now the only question is 'what application are we talking about?'
>
> Are we talking about the HTTP or FTP server? In this case HTTP
> and FTP are
>
> the application protocols.
>
> Are we talking about accounting? In this case the accounting protocol is
> the
> application protocol.
>
> Is it possible to have an application on top of an application on top of
> an
> application? How about my accounting application running inside a WS
> container (in itself an application) implemented inside an HTTP
> server (in
>
> itself an application). Is that possible?
>
> This of course doesn't help much, because we've just introduced three
> different protocols, one described by HTTP, one described by WSDL and one
> described by WSCI (just as an example). Again as with synch/asynch, this
> is
> all a matter of applying a definition in the proper context.
>
> arkin
>
> >
> > The *critical* thing that one has to accept in order to
> understand REST,
>
> > is that application protocol methods are the same as operations in an
> > API, i.e. at the same layer of the stack as "getStockQuote" or
> > "purchaseBook".  If you just take this as a given for a moment, you'll
> > see that all the arguments I've ever made on this subject become a big,
> > complex, yet entirely self-consistent description of much of Web
> > architecture, and indeed several other Internet scale architectures.  If
> > you don't accept it, then I probably come off as a loon, which I
> > completely understand because I thought the same thing of some guys who
> > saying that to me back in 97/98 (Dan Connolly and Roy Fielding, FWIW).
> >
> > So, a *rhetorical* question for those of you who don't believe that
> > GET is at the same layer as getStockQuote; what would you call a
> > protocol that does have a "getStockQuote" method?  Note; "application
> > protocol" is already taken. 8-)
> >
> > MB
> > --
> > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 14:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT