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: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:23:55 -0400
Message-ID: <001501c32894$e191b780$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>

I have to agree with Chris.

+10 is required, not just for interoperability, but also for automation and
tooling.

I think that photos.yahoo.com with well-documented URLs and HTTP POST
formats qualifies as a Web service in the same way that a proprietary IDL
and method invocation mechansism qualifies as an RPC -- but it can't be
CORBA unless it comforms to a specific IDL language dialect with a specific
data encoding and protocol.

Our task is to define a standard Web services architecture -- and two of our
core requirements are to support interoperability and to enable developers
to use a diverse set of tools to build and consume services. Interop and
tooling requires standard protocols and metadata formats: hence SOAP and
WSDL.

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the
definitio n of Web service"


>
> I'd have to chime in with the following:
>
>         +10 for interoperability
> and
>         +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
> something
> else.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 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
> 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 19:24:26 GMT

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