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

RE: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:17:34 -0800
To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a401c2b2ac$c0b98d20$9d0ba8c0@beasys.com>

Exactly!  XML (easy, decentralized vocabularies) is the thing that enables a
HUGE number of new applications, as opposed to just browsers/web servers.
Now how do we deal with and help foster that explosion of vocabularies and
protocols?  Hey, our group.

And I'd like to really bury the whole "why do web services at w3c" argument.
There are 2 fundamental questions: 1) the technical relationship between the
Web and Web services; 2) the work that the W3C decides to do and the process
to choose.  If we take a look at 1996, why on earth would the "World-Wide
Web Consortium" choose to do XML?  If you think about the Web as
hypermedia - remember Roy's thesis talked about a few coarse grained
hypermedia formats - then why would the W3C choose to subset the ISO SGML
spec for defining arbitrary document formats?  It chose to do so because
it's membership chose to do so!  A consortium is simply a group of
organizations that choose to do certain work.  Typically consortia start in
a particular area, but they often evolve.  And the membership of the W3C has
expressed overwhelming interest in doing Web services, and further doing a
portion of that work at the W3C.

Even if (and I don't think there's any chance of it and you know how I'd
vote :-) the TAG decided that Web services wasn't part of the Web (question
#1), it would be simply abhorrent to think that the TAG could then kick Web
services out of the W3C (question #2).  The notion that a technical
committee (even as apparently august a body as the TAG is), of which only 5
of the 9 are elected and 1 of the elected's company isn't part of the W3C,
could over-rule the votes of hundreds of paying member companies is a
perversion of process and democracy that is almost beyond belief.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:59 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:37 PM
> > To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice
> >
> >
> >
> > > > etc.  The point being that maybe Web services is bigger than
> > > > the Web, in the
> > > > sense that the Web made certain optimizations that Web
> > > > services can't make
> > > > because Web services is targetting a wider scope of
> applications.
>
> The more I think about this, the more I agree with it.  It's
> liberating, in
> a way, to at least allow for the possibility that
> (terminology aside!!!) Web
> services are a superset of "the Web" rather than the subset
> of the Web that
> involves machine-to-machine interaction.  [One could also argue that
> everything with a URI is on "the Web", so any service that follows our
> (probable) recommendation to identify key components with a
> URI would be on
> the Web...]
>
> And for those who will question why the W3C is dealing with
> "Web services"
> if they transcend the Web, I have two answers:
>
> 1 - The W3C Advisory Committee and Membership appears to
> strongly endorse
> it.
> 2 - XML also transcends the Web.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 17:20:58 GMT

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