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: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:03:26 -0700
To: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002001c3294a$6ac0ba00$ff66000a@beasys.com>

So, to all the +10 and +5ers out there, what do you call the *thing* that
Mike described as -5, +1, or +2?  If it ain't a Web service, what is it?
Please don't "Mu"ck up answering :-)

I see the poles as this:
Position #1: the W3C Web services activity is about SOAP, WSDL, ++, how the
architecture of these relate.  Don't care about what -5 is.  The market can
call it foo.  Course, might be nice to have an answer for cutomers but not
in any w3c work.
Position #2: the W3C Web services activity is about SOAP, WSDL, ++, how the
architecture of these relate.  Care about what -5 is.  Market is confused
about whether -5=Web service OR +10=Web service.  Want to have some
differentiation betweeen them.  Also want to have some justification for
why -5 services should actually be operated as +10.

Notice that the only difference between position #1 and position #2 is that
the group comes up with terms for -5 and +10, and describes the differences
and the advantages (maybe disadvantages??) of +10.  The bulk of the work is
clearly related to service of the +10 form in either case.

Chris, this is what I've been trying to get at for a while now.  The work we
do, architecting how wsdl/soap/extensions fit together, goes on in our group
no matter which definition we choose.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:38 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> 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 Monday, 2 June 2003 17:02:39 GMT

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