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

Re: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the definitio n of Web service"

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:59:50 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030604115730.021946a8@rgmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Hi,
    I pretty much agree with Chris here.
    From my perspective it seems like a no-brainer that WSDL is required.
    I think "at least" SOAP is required for interop reasons. Other bindings 
are perfectly fine, but a minimum i think we should put in the constraint 
that a SOAP binding is always required.

    I guess that makes me a +10.

cheers,
jeff

At 02:37 PM 6/1/2003, Christopher B Ferris wrote:

>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 Wednesday, 4 June 2003 16:52:02 GMT

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