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

RE: Draft definition of WS

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:54:53 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E026EF9D1@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
cc: "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:40 PM
To: Anne Thomas Manes
Cc: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Brian Connell; David Booth;
www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Draft definition of WS


While I quite like application-to-application, as that has been the 
focus of my work for the last xx years, I do believe that 
machine-to-machine is now part of the `vernacular'.

I also do not believe that this is worth losing any sleep over! Frank

On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 10:04  AM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:

>
> Why not replace "machine-to-machine" with 
> "application-to-application"?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
> To: "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>; "David Booth"
> <dbooth@w3.org>;
> <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:28 PM
> Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS
>
>
>>
>> The point is valid, but I think that just about everybody agrees that

>> the basic intention behind "designed to support machine-to-machine 
>> ..." is extremely important.  That's essentially what separates Web
>> services
>> from ugly things like screen scraping Web sites.
>>
>> I personally do not think that the current phrasing implies that it 
>> can't be used on the same machine -- just that the common usage 
>> pattern is different machines.  Recall, however, that I essentially 
>> brought up the same point objecting to introducing the word "remote" 
>> into the definition.
>>
>> I think that removing "machine-to-machine" altogether would be a very

>> bad idea, but some sort of recognition somewhere that interactions on

>> the same machine are "OK" would be useful.  I don't think that 
>> anybody would object to a specific Web service implementation that, 
>> for some good reason, was not actually exposed to other machines.  
>> The potential would exist, of course, to expose it -- one can just 
>> turn that off if appropriate.
>>
>> Doesn't this sort of come under the security umbrella?  That is, 
>> controlling the scope to which the service is exposed, with one 
>> extreme being no network exposure whatsoever?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Connell [mailto:brian@westglobal.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:43 AM
>> To: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an issue I would like to raise with the phrase 
>> 'machine-to-machine'.
>>
>>> A Web service is a software system, designed to support 
>>> machine-to-machine interaction over a network,
>>
>> This implies that a Web service is not designed to be used if the 
>> software systems are interacting on the same machine (even using the 
>> same processor).
>>
>> Can I suggest that we remove the 'machine-to-machine' term 
>> altogether, or that we further qualify the word 'interaction' in a 
>> way that includes software systems on the same 'machine'.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brian Connell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 13:55:28 GMT

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