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

Re: Explanation / Defense of "+5"

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:28:06 -0700
Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
Message-Id: <30FA2C1A-9517-11D7-BBC0-000393A3327C@fla.fujitsu.com>

There is a thread going on in WSD at the moment on incorporating DAML 
into WSDL 1.2 via some kind of extensibility mechanism

Frank

On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 05:09  AM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:

>
> I go back to tooling. We want to make sure that developers have a 
> choice of
> tools for building Web services. Tools require a standard description
> language (as well as a standard protocols).
>
> While I agree that it's useful to be able to support DAML-S in place of
> WSDL, the "better" way would be to have DAML-S extend WSDL rather than 
> be an
> alternative to WSDL.
>
> Our other alternative is to name more than one description language 
> (but we
> definitely want to limit the number of standard description languages).
>
> Anne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
> To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:34 PM
> Subject: Explanation / Defense of "+5"
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:12 PM
>>> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>>> Subject: RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the
>>> definition of Web service"
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Good points.  I have two concerns with "+10" that maybe some 
>> discussion
>> could alleviate.  First, I hope that a language that is rich enough to
>> contain WSDL's conceptual model but might have different syntax or
>> additional semantics would be considered in scope for WSA.  The 
>> obvious
>> example that we discussed in Rennes during Bijan's presentation is 
>> DAML-S.
>> In general, DAML-S descriptions seem to start by "importing" a WSDL
>> definition and then elaborating / annotating the semantics.  Thus, 
>> it's
>> clear that DAML-S is rich enough to contain WSDL's conceptual model.
> Would
>> a WSD authored natively in DAML-S have to be translated to WSDL to be 
>> an
>> in-scope Web service? Or if, hypothetically, some Choreography spec 
>> built
>> its own description language into the choreography language rather 
>> than
>> extending WSDL, would those Web services be compliant / in-scope?  
>> That's
>> why I am more comfortable with talking about the WSDL *concepts and
>> relationships* than "WSDL" per se.  I really don't want to make a big 
>> deal
>> out of this, however, it seems like it might be an excessively 
>> pedantic
>> distinction, but it's what I'm thinking now :-)
>>
>> The other concern is SOAP.  There's a "what do I really need SOAP for"
>> permathread all over the place.  The response I'm most comfortable 
>> with is
>> "you don't REALLY need SOAP if you're doing simple, non-secure,
> non-mission
>> critical services using only HTTP.  You will find that you need SOAP
> *badly*
>> [1] once you start doing:  more complex things (e.g. involving message
>> correlation or transations); secure services where SSL doesn't do the 
>> job;
>> mission-critical stuff where you need reliability, routing or 
>> whatever;
> and
>> you start having to support multiple protocols or bridge across 
>> protocols
>> (SMTP/POP, JMS-interface proprietary protocols, MQ, or whatever).   
>> So, I
>> don't want to say that people who don't really need SOAP must use 
>> SOAP (as
>> opposed to plain XML over HTTP) in order to be WSA-compliant.  Again, 
>> as
> Ugo
>> and Chris mentioned, it's possible that "SOAP" can be abstract enough 
>> to
>> cover such cases with the web-method stuff and perhaps more 
>> sophisticated
>> HTTP bindings than the one in 1.2, so this may be a red herring.  I 
>> can
> also
>> accept "put in some weasel words saying that this you can have web
> services
>> without SOAP but they are too unconstrained to analyze for the WSA." 
>> But
>> again, it's where my head is right now, and I would appreciate some
>> argument/explanation.
>>
>> [1] I am of  course aware of the RESTifarian counter-argument that all
> this
>> stuff is the application's job not the infrastructure's.  I just think
>> that's a non-starter for this group and for the industry we represent.
>>
>
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 12:28:52 GMT

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