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

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

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 19:02:19 -0500
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <006301c2b5e0$0bd1dd40$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>


> 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.

Yes but the word "web" got in there for some reason.  Do you think there
was aversion to calling it "HTTP Services"?  Do you have any data on whether
"web services" is truly developing in directions other than the one that
through HTTP, or is all that "protocol independence" stuff just a pipe dream
and a distraction?

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

True, but it did at least at one time have the mission of transferring

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

For defining extensible markup languages, even.  That minor slip in
level is too common to get worked up about.

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

In internet RFC speak, everything is "Simple" and "Protocol", so we always
get "S**P" in that space, and I think the original idea
did have to do with communicating between COM objects, so again it's
just some evolution to contend with in the naming mismatch.

> 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
> stop arguing about it.  Until then, let's not let the terminology  drive
> substance of the discussion.

That would be too easy in a sense, and unsatisfying.  The problem I have is
"web" is an intriguing construct, so I'd rather have it in than out.  I'm
only on the tip of the iceberg of understanding why.  I guess you could say
internal web has some holes in it.

> Sorry for the long-winded speech in response to a simple question :-)

Far preferable to no response at all.  I think I answered your longest part
already, so didn't copy it or comment on it further.

Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 19:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:02 UTC