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: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:48:54 +0200
Message-ID: <3EDB63D6.1010707@crf.canon.fr>
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 GMT

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