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

Re: Draft definition of WS

From: Brian Connell <brian@westglobal.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:38:18 +0100
Message-Id: <200307252238.h6PMcIqX023178@westglobal.com>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

+1

Needs no footnotes or explanations, is unambiguous and clear, and 
means what we want it to say.

Brian


> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

-- 

Brian Connell, CTO, WestGlobal    http://www.westglobal.com
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 18:38:45 GMT

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