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

RE: Draft definition of WS

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:43:09 -0400
Message-ID: <5C76D29CD0FA3143896D08BB1743296A0101CF55@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

>How about "other software systems"?  I don't think that another system
>needs to be "remote" in order to invoke a Web service.  It might be the
>usual, or most interesting, situation -- but ...

Of course one can do WS on a single machine, but this is missing the whole context 
for why WS have been invented - Web-based distributed computing. Too broad 
of a defintion says very little. We need to restrict the meaning to focus 
on the practical reason for doing this - not the theoretical. Probably 
someone has the answer - by why would you ever induce the inefficencies of 
distributed computing if you were doing ipc?

>I personally don't think that "may" carries with it the 
>implication that
>you draw, but I'd also personally rather not add "may" to 
>"has" and "is"
>as topics that we debate for ungodly amounts of time.  To me, however,
>in this context "may" implies, "they interact with the Web service if
>they feel like it", which seems right to me.  It seems to me, however,
>that the sentence scans OK either way and I don't see a substantive
>difference in meaning.

I think that the word 'is' is MUCH better in definitions than the word
'may'. Restricting interpretation, ie focus & clarity, is our job 

In this case, considering only your interpretaion  - why are we discussing 
that a client can decide to not invoke the WS. This is not central to the
architecture or to this definition.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com] 
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:57 AM
>To: dbooth@w3.org; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS
>This is pedantic, but I would like to edit the phrase: 
>'Other systems may interact with the Web service in a manner prescribed
>by its description, ...'
>Does it not logically follow then that other systems could 
>interact in a
>manner not prescribed by its description... Should this looseness be
>part of the definition? I would narrow the meaning some:
>'Other systems interact with the Web service in a manner prescribed by
>its description, ...'
>I am also unclear why we use the term 'Other systems'. If a WS consumer
>is interacting with a WS provider, are they not part of the same
>'system'. Could we say instead 'A remote processor'? 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ext David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
>>Sent: July 24, 2003 09:58 PM
>>To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS
>>Your changes look good to me.  Thanks.
>>At 05:46 PM 7/24/2003 -0500, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>>>[Roger's suggested modifications:]
>>>There are many things that might reasonably be called "Web
>>services" in
>>>the world at large.  However, for the purpose of this
>>architecture, and
>>>without prejudice toward other definitions, we will use the following
>>>A Web service is a software system designed to support 
>>>machine-to-machine interaction over a network.  It is 
>identified by a 
>>>URI and has public interfaces described in a
>>machine-processable format
>>>(WSDL). Other systems may interact with the Web service in a manner 
>>>prescribed by its description, typically using XML-based messages 
>>>conveyed using HTTP, SOAP and other Web-related standards.
>>David Booth
>>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 12:43:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:08 UTC