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

RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the definition of Web service"

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:11:59 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC90811E0@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

+10.

The open ended nature of SOAP and WSDL bindings should provide plenty of flexibility for alternatives other than the classical WSDL binding to SOAP over HTTP.

I also think that, using Mike's words, "there is not much difference between the +5 and the +10 positions, because SOAP 1.2 and WSDL 1.2 are rich and extensible enough to encompass things like RESTful and Semantic Web applications". In fact, SOAP 1.2 Web Method feature supports a RESTful model, and the WSD group is discussing how to integrate RDF in WSDL 1.2 as we speak.

At this point in time, I believe any decision of extending WSA's foundations beyond SOAP and WSDL would create confusion in the industry and undermine the main reason for Web services existence, i.e. interoperability.

If at a certain point in the future it became evident that the industry needed something more than SOAP and WSDL as WS foundation, I would certainly be happy to contemplate a new version of WSA that took that into account. 

Ugo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:04 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the
> definitio n of Web service" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 why
> > we are doing Web services in the first place, and you cannot achieve
> > interop if there are thirty one flavors of Web service 
> technology stacks.
> 
> 
> Since we're proposing text for section 1.5 of the document, 
> and we're doing
> triage on issues to see how close we are to consensus, let's 
> see where we
> 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 the
> subject line).
> 
> Heres's what I would consider to be the range of plausible 
> opinions: (the
> ordering of some of the options is a bit arbitrary, but try 
> to get into the
> 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 loosely
> coupled way over the Web
> 
> 0  SOAP or WSDL is necessary, it depends on the details of 
> the application
> 
> +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 is
> concerned.
> 
> "Mu" [1] would also be an acceptable vote; that would 
> indicate your sense
> that this scale is meaningless, or orthogonal to your 
> conception of what is
> important.  I would imagine that Mark B. would be in the "mu" 
> position, but
> I could be wrong :-)
> 
> A few scenarios that might help:
> 
> Would something like photos.yahoo.com be a "web service"  if 
> they documented
> their URLs and POST formats well enough for programmers to 
> use the service?
> Such a service would allow one to use HTTP POST to put images 
> in a gallery
> 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 Web
> service, I think you would vote -10.
> 
> Would something like photos.yahoo.com that only worked with 
> SVG images and
> used XQuery (extended with operations to store data as well 
> as query it) be
> 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 without
> 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 description)
> of both the data formats and protocols needed to access the 
> service?  Vote
> +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, not
> no'. 
> It states that the context of the question is such that a yes 
> or no answer
> 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 19:12:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:20 GMT