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

RE: Machine-To-Machine

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:25:23 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E026EF9E0@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, michael.mahan@nokia.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Boy, oh boy, oh boy, do I EVER agree with this!!  Thanks for saying it
so well, Eric.

-----Original Message-----
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 1:39 PM
To: Anne Thomas Manes; michael.mahan@nokia.com; Cutler, Roger
(RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Machine-To-Machine

Ok, fair enough, but can we please just go back to David's proposal,
which was based on a survey, and if anything needs modifying, let's
please suggest modifications based on that rather than start a whole new

I realize everyone has their favorite definitions, and I have mine as
well, which is again different from David's and Paul's.  But we have
been at this for more than a year now, and many many definitions have
been reviewed and discussed.

If we can't focus on the proposal coming out of the survey, we are in
danger of going another year.  At some point all of us are going to have
to live with a definition that may be different than what we'd prefer if
we were documenting our own view rather than trying to achieve consensus
among the WG members.

Let's continue down the consensus path, please, and reassert David's
proposal as the topic of discussion.



-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:48 AM
To: michael.mahan@nokia.com; RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com;
Subject: Re: Machine-To-Machine

As a general description -- +1.

But I'm just wondering if this definition excludes Web services that
support WSRP and WSIA.


----- Original Message -----
From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
To: <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>; <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: Machine-To-Machine

> I think the intention of machine-machine and app-app verbiage is to
> the absence of presentation data encoded into the message- things like

> <head> and <p> and <table><tr><td> .... hence the 'direct human' 
> phrasing
> Tweaking Paul's definition, only changing the first line, I like the 
> rest, for the reasons he described:
> <suggestion>
> A Web service is a distributed software system designed for the 
> exchange of messages encoded with functional rather than presentation 
> data. Web services use URIs for identifiers, and have interfaces 
> described using XML (typically WSDL). Agents interact with the Web 
> service in a manner prescribed by its description, using XML-based 
> messages typically conveyed using HTTP, SOAP and other Web-related 
> standards. </suggestion>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: July 26, 2003 05:45 PM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Machine-To-Machine
> One more thought.  I believe that if you think about it you will find 
> that
the wordings that emphasize the absence of live human beings actually
exclude some rather important usage scenarios where the Web services are
being invoked from applications being used by people.  Since a number of
the member companies of the W3C are putting big bucks into devising and
marketing such implementations, this would seem to me to be ... unwise.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 4:28 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Machine-To-Machine
> I am in favor of using the phrase machine-to-machine, possibly with a
footnote or glossary entry explaining more fully what we mean and
reassuring people that we do not intend to exclude implementations on
one machine but simply to point out the thrust of what Web services are
intended for.  My reasons are as follows:
> 1 - This was the phrase used by D Booth in his survey which formed the
basis of the recent discussion and move-forward on the subject.  That
phrasing found strong support and energy.  Nobody seemed to have trouble
understanding what it meant.  Why mess with success?
> 2 - The phrase, to my understanding, is commonly used to mean pretty 
> much
exactly what we want to use it for.  Why mess with common usage?
> There are some reasonable alternatives that have been proposed.  I 
> think
that they all have weaknesses.  Specifically:
> "Application-to-application":
> 1 - Somewhat embarrassingly, browsers and Web servers are 
> applications. 2 - Some might think that this term unduly emphasizes 
> the RPC style of Web
> "interactions between agents (as defined by ws-arch definition of 
> agent),
where the agents are not directly controlled by humans":
> 1 - Wordy and not oriented toward common usage of terms.
> 2 - "Not directly controlled by humans" might be interpreted 
> completely
differently than intended.  "Directly" might reasonably be interpreted
as "without intermediary".  I think that the word David might have been
reaching for might have been "synchronously", but that word has problems
with us at the moment.  We are currently deprecating its use.  At any
rate, I think that this kind of detailed verbiage belongs in an
explanation of what we mean by "machine-to-machine", not up front.
> "designed to support interactions that do not require human 
> involvement at
> between agents over a network"
> 1 - Grammatically fuzzy (antecedants are unclear), but I suppose it 
> can be
cleaned up.  Is it "interaction between agents" or "involvement between
agents"?  I actually don't know.  Hmmm, probably interaction.  How
about, "designed to support interactions between agents over a network
that do not
require human involvement at runtime"?   Ugh, that's a syntactic mess
Does "require" refer to "network"?
> 2 - Why not just "machine-to-machine".  This seems to be an attempt to
explain in a lot of words what that means.  Flesh it out into several
sentences so that what modifies what is clear and this seems like
another good start at a glossary entry for machine-to-machine.  But
fleshed out into several sentences is probably too much for the context
in which we are talking about using it.
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 18:26:07 UTC

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