- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:48:54 +0200
- CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org
+10 as well. Jean-Jacques. Ugo Corda wrote: > +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 Monday, 2 June 2003 10:49:26 UTC