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 14:19:25 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E026EF9D4@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
cc: "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org

Although it may be getting more pedantically accurate, it is also become
less readable.  Can't we just use a common phrase like
"machine-to-machine" and, if necessary, define it in the glossary or a
footnote?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 1:20 PM
To: 'Christopher B Ferris'; 'Anne Thomas Manes'
Cc: 'Brian Connell'; 'David Booth'; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler);
www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS



How about something like "interactions between agents (as defined by
ws-arch definition of agent), where the agents are not directly
controlled by humans".

This focuses on the human controlling the agent aspect.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:43 AM
> To: Anne Thomas Manes
> Cc: Brian Connell; David Booth; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); 
> www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft definition of WS
>
>
>
> I really see no reason to change it at all. "machine-to-machine" does 
> not imply
> physically separate and distinct "machines" (boxes); it is
> meant to imply
> that
> the interchange does not require human involvement/intervention at
> runtime.
>
> I suppose that "application-to-application" might eliminate any 
> confusion that
> the definition suggests that machine=box and that it was only
> intended to
> support the case where there were two (or more I suppose) physically
> separate
> and distinct boxes.
>
> Application-to-application might be acceptable, but application is 
> also fuzzy;
> isn't a browser an application (or is it just part of the OS:-).
>
> Maybe it would be clearer if the definition read:
>
> A Web service is a software system, designed to support interactions 
> that do not require human involvement at runtime between agents over a

> network, ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624
>
> www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 07/25/2003 01:04:35 PM:
>
> >
> > 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 15:20:07 GMT

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