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

Re: Explanation / Defense of "+5"

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:32:05 -0400
Message-ID: <003501c32924$a7ddd380$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

+1 !!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>;
<www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Explanation / Defense of "+5"


> 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 12:33:31 GMT

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