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

Re: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the definitio n of Web service"

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 17:37:54 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD5BE3984.D51855C6-ON85256D38.0075E470-85256D38.0076D3F7@us.ibm.com>

I'd have to chime in with the following:

        +10 for interoperability 
        +5 WSDL is necessary but other protocols (e.g. not necessarily 
SOAP) can 
                be used where supported

For purposes of defining WSA, I think that the answer has to be +10, after 
all we are in the 
Web Services Activity and there are two sister WG's focused on those 
technologies.  One would
hope that WS_Choreography will be building off of WSDL and SOAP and not 

I think that the fact that WSDL allows you to describe bindings that are 
not SOAP-based is an
added bonus. It just makes the technology that much more compelling.


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 06/01/2003 12:03:45 PM:

> Chris said (and Ugo +1'd)
> > And, for the record, I am still very much opposed to any effort
> > to generalize "Web service" for purposes of this architecture document 

> > that does not have SOAP and WSDL at its core. IMO, interoperability is 
> > we are doing Web services in the first place, and you cannot achieve
> > interop if there are thirty one flavors of Web service technology 
> Since we're proposing text for section 1.5 of the document, and we're 
> triage on issues to see how close we are to consensus, let's see where 
> stand on this one.  I'd appreciate hearing from everyone who cares about
> this (and if you want to debate someone else's position, please change 
> subject line).
> Heres's what I would consider to be the range of plausible opinions: 
> ordering of some of the options is a bit arbitrary, but try to get into 
> spirit of the thing here ...)
> -10 Neither are necessary; if two machines can agree on how to
> provide/consume services over the Web, they are doing "Web services."
> -5 Neither are necessary, but XML is. It's XML that provides the secret
> sauce that allows machines to communicate in a standards-based but 
> coupled way over the Web
> 0  SOAP or WSDL is necessary, it depends on the details of the 
> +1 WSDL is necessary, but not SOAP
> +2 SOAP is necessary, but not WSDL
> +5 Both are necessary "conceptually" but not literally. 
> +10 Both are necessary, at least as far as the scope of the WSA document 
> concerned.
> "Mu" [1] would also be an acceptable vote; that would indicate your 
> that this scale is meaningless, or orthogonal to your conception of what 
> important.  I would imagine that Mark B. would be in the "mu" position, 
> I could be wrong :-)
> A few scenarios that might help:
> Would something like photos.yahoo.com be a "web service"  if they 
> their URLs and POST formats well enough for programmers to use the 
> Such a service would allow one to use HTTP POST to put images in a 
> and then, depending on the query parameters in the URI, get them back in
> difference sizes, formats, orientations, etc.   If you think this is a 
> service, I think you would vote -10.
> Would something like photos.yahoo.com that only worked with SVG images 
> used XQuery (extended with operations to store data as well as query it) 
> a "Web service?"  If so, would would probably vote -5
> Would the "photos" service sketched out above be a Web service if they 
> - Published either a SOAP or a WSDL interface description?  Vote 0
> - Published a WSDL description of how to access the service (with or 
> SOAP)? Vote +1
> - Defined a SOAP interface and documented it with example code? Vote +2
> - Published a DAML-S description (or some other formal language 
> of both the data formats and protocols needed to access the service? 
> +5
> - Defined a SOAP interface *and* published a WSDL description of the
> interface?  Vote +10
> [1]"mu means 'no thing'. Like 'quality' it points outside the process of
> dualistic 
> discrimination. mu simply says, 'no class; not one, not zero, not yes, 
> no'. 
> It states that the context of the question is such that a yes or no 
> is in 
> error and should not be given. 'Unask the question' is what it says." 
> - Robert M. Pirsig from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
> Maintenance. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553277472
Received on Sunday, 1 June 2003 17:38:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:07 UTC