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

Re: The UR Trout: Web Services, REST, SOAP

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:40:00 -0400
Message-ID: <000301c34337$2a8d2020$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Perhaps we'd like to take a step back and define the term "service" before
defining the term "web service". One of the biig concerns I have about
saying htttp/xml things are web services is that so many http/xml things are
not services at all -- they are designed for GUI consumption (via a browser)
not for software consumption (via an api).

There are many ways to implement services -- http/xml, java/rmi, dcom, .net
remoting, corba, soap, etc. The wsa describes a particular type of service
called a web service. Features of this type of services are that it ensures
complete language and platform neutrality through a standardized wire
protocol (soap), and it enables interoperable tooling through a standardized
description language (wsdl).

I think these two goals should appear in our definition: language and
platform-neutrality and standardized tooling

I'd be willing to say that an http/xml service described by wsdl qualify as
a web service because it supports these two goals, but it doesn't support
the higher-level infrastructure services defined by the architecture
(security, reliability, etc). So perhaps we might want to define level 0
services (http/xml/wsdl) and level 1 web services (soap/wsdl).

I disagree with Sanjiva that "wsdl = web service" because you can describe
anything with wsdl, but wsdl doesn't ensure language and platform
neutrality. wsif is great technology -- it allows a java application to
access almost anything described by wsdl -- but it doesn't help a vb
application access an ejb component. Nor does it help a Java application
access a .net remoting component.

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: The UR Trout: Web Services, REST, SOAP


>
> "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes:
> > Personally, I think that http and xhtml things are web resources, not
Web
> > services.  If there's a WSDL description available and it's a SOAP
thing,
> > then it's a Web service.
> >
> > But I think that there are still the 4 views that we haven't quite
> > reconciled: http/xml things are web services; soap things are web
> services;
> > things with wsdl are web services; soap things with wsdl are web
services.
>
> As a WSDL kinda guy, I am of the "has WSDL => is a Web service"
> orientation. HTTP/XML "services" can be described fully in WSDL
> and programmed in the same way as SOAP accessed services. I don't
> see why people need to get hung up on whether the data is carried
> in "raw" XML or wrapped in a SOAP envelope .. those are just
> "binding details" in my mind.
>
> If one says HTTP/XML is not a Web service, then is something that
> uses the SOAP Response MEP a half a Web service??
>
> Sanjiva.
>
Received on Saturday, 5 July 2003 16:51:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT