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

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

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:57:36 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030710124259.0c245958@rgmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Personally I think the defining notion is WSDL, along with a mandatory 
binding to SOAP/HTTP. The mandatory binding is to guarantee interop which 
is what I thought is the raison d'etre of this whole effort.

If the WSDL wonks decide that WSDL 1.2 can describe 'everything' that can 
be done using a computer on a network, then I guess we'll have to burn that 
bridge when we come to it.

Remember, a definition to be useful, has to exclude (non-theoretical and 
useful) things. Otherwise you've just got yet another definition for 
'everything'.

Since most of the web service advocates don't seem to think that web 
services include CORBA, then certainly one litmus test for any definition 
is whether it includes CORBA. (I'll even be nice and won't ask what happens 
if I define an XML schema for GIOP messages, encode them as XML, and send 
them along?)

cheers,
   jeff

At 12:27 PM 7/3/2003, David Orchard wrote:

>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.
>
>Cheers,
>dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Martin Chapman
> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:51 AM
> > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: The UR Trout: Web Services, REST, SOAP
> >
> >
> >
> > So http and xhtml are web services?
> > The key point is that there is of course a spectrum.
> > Are we trying to label the spectrum as a whole, or label and define an
> > architecture
> > for a band within the spectrum?
> >
> > Martin.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:34 AM
> > > To: Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: The UR Trout: Web Services, REST, SOAP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> writes:
> > > > yes but are they [http and xml] "web services"? this is
> > the 1m euro
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > To me, absolutely. Without that you cannot build WSA as a single
> > > architecture that encompasses both "technologies" for doing stuff.
> > > Also, WSDL can model the [http and xml] thingies too of course,
> > > so really REST collapses under WS ;-).
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 16:00:55 GMT

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