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

Terminology (was RE: Issue 5 and "webarch")

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:18:29 -0500
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E404B6D4CF@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net]
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 11:09 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 5 and "webarch"
> 
 
> How does the name "Services Architecture" strike you?  Sounds 
> like something that's already been done, huh?

There's not too much disagreement AFAIK that "Web services" is a somewhat
unfortunate term for the things that people are actually doing with
SOAP+WSDL+etc today.  "XML Services" or even "standards based application
integration" is probably closer to the mark.  

But then again ....

HTTP is for a lot more than "hypertext" (not to mention the fact that it is
used as much for "transport" as "transfer" <ducking>)

XML is not an "Extensible Markup Language", its a metalanguage for defining
markup languages.

SOAP is not exactly simple, has nothing explicitly to do with objects, and
is no longer an acronym for anything.

So, you're right.  Convince the rest of the world that "Web services" is a
bad term, get them to agree on another,  and many of us would be ecstatic to
stop arguing about it.  Until then, let's not let the terminology  drive the
substance of the discussion.

So, I submit that the relationship between the Web architecture and the WSA
(whatever that acronym does or does not stand for!) is an open question that
should be discussed here and will be addressed in the WSA document.  It is
*not* something whose answer was predestined by the fact that somebody or
other (a Microsoft marketing person???) came up with the "web services"
label, or that this  is being done under the auspices of the World Wide Web
Consortium.  Some participants on this list (c.f.
http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/Blog/) are convinced that the W3C Powers
that Be  will set us straight on the latter point.   I don't agree; I think
we're doing the world a service by clarifying how SOAP/WSDL as specified and
as practiced do, could, and should relate to the Web and the TAG's Webarch
principles. I have gotten no hint of pushback on this from the TAG or the
W3C management. If anyone thought that WSA should simply be the same as the
Webarch, they presumably would not have voted for this group to be
chartered!  Since the W3C AC and membership did charter the group and
apparently support the various WS efforts at the W3C quite strongly, I'm not
going to worry about it.  

On the other hand, the terminology question is probably worth adressing
early in the WSA document ... suggestions for a paragraph  saying something
like "In a rational world, this stuff would be called XXX, because .... But
for better or worse the world calls it 'Web services', too bad, c'est la
vie" would be welcomed.


Sorry for the long-winded speech in response to a simple question :-)
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 00:18:41 GMT

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