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

RE: Web Service Description and stateful services - (on the 'www-ws@w3.org' list) Debating on a) Stateful Web Service Instances b) Stateful Interaction - OGSI

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 09:40:43 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC908120F@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

No, I am not concluding that it is out of scope at all. WSDL can be extended with a lot of information that can be classified as "semantics". The WSD group started looking at integrating RDF/OWL in WSDL. Other groups are thinking about policies expressible in WSDL. In the case of BPEL I could put a reference in the BPEL WSDL file pointing to the BPEL process document which could give me a clear idea of how state is kept inside the process. Etc.

So I think that state semantics could be expressed on top of the existing standards. The issue here would be how far we want to develop these concepts within our group as opposed to just pointing out their importance and letting other groups develop them.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 8:45 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Assaf Arkin
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Service Description and stateful services - (on the
> 'www-ws@w3.org' list) Debating on a) Stateful Web Service Instances b)
> Stateful Interaction - OGSI
> 
> 
> Are you saying that this state stuff is part of the semantics?  That
> seems OK, but if from that you then conclude that it is out of scope
> (anything not in SOAP/WSDL is out of scope??) -- then I don't 
> like where
> we are going.  There is too much left that is, IMO, important.  For
> example, would it not be a nice idea, somewhere down the line, to add
> the concepts involved with an acknowledgement infrastructure (the more
> precise way of looking at what many people mean when they talk about
> reliability) into the UML diagram?  As Assaf (I think) points out,
> that's a structure that maintains state, at least in one 
> sense.  I still
> think that the word "state" is being used in more than one sense.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:20 PM
> To: Assaf Arkin
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Service Description and stateful services - (on the
> 'www-ws@w3.org' list) Debating on a) Stateful Web Service Instances b)
> Stateful Interaction - OGSI
> 
> 
> 
> > What do we call the internals? Is it a 'service' but not a 'Web
> > service', the 'service behind the service', the 'Web service whose 
> > definition is given by more than WSDL/SOAP', or something totally 
> > difference?
> 
> In my view a Web service includes both the WSDL definition (the
> "interface syntax") and its semantics. I would only decide to 
> use a Web
> service after knowing its semantics.
> 
> The problem is that so far we only have a standardized way of 
> describing
> the interface. The current work of the WSD group on RDF/OWL is an
> attempt to provide a standardized way to describe the semantics. But
> again the concept of Web service should include both the interface and
> the semantics behind.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2003 12:40:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT