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: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:47:09 -0700
To: "'Jeff Mischkinsky'" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003301c32ae2$da50a6c0$da0ba8c0@beasys.com>

Another question to the +10ers.  If a WSDL file can describe a service that
uses HTTP GET and POST and not SOAP, as in http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_http,
is that service a web service?  Under the +10 definition, it isn't.  So the
"Web service" description language describes Web service + something else.
What do you call that something else that WSD can describe but isn't a Web
service?  Which also means that we actually have a Web Service + some other
thing Description Language.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jeff Mischkinsky
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:00 PM
> To: Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the
> definitio n of Web service"
>
>
>
> 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 17:46:29 GMT

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