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

RE: WS, SOA, and the Web

From: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 13:49:00 -0400
Message-ID: <DCF6EF589A22A14F93DFB949FD8C4AB201074483@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <eric.newcomer@iona.com>, "Baker, Mark" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Ok, on re-reading this I can see it's getting a bit out there into theory.  The only real point I'm trying to make is that at this stage in WSA, we need to concentrate on defining the relationships among architectural elements.

I think Mark is kind of splitting hairs by saying that defining a relationship inherently involves constraints -- perhaps this is true when you finish working through the process.  But all I'm suggesting here is that we focus for the moment on establishing the right relationships, and consider constraints as a next step.


-----Original Message-----
From: Newcomer, Eric 
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:41 PM
To: Baker, Mark
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS, SOA, and the Web

Right, it does appear that we don't agree, after all.

In my view, architecture as a general concept is distinct from its application to specific problems.  This is an age-old argument, of course, dating at least to the Platonic distinction between ideal form and realized artifact (the ideal form of chair being distinct from its realization in wood or stone etc.)  

So in my world the WSA has an ideal form distinct from its realization in technology, and we need to consider these separately, but if I understand correctly in your world there's no distinction between an abstraction and its realization, and they should be considered as one.



-----Original Message-----
From: Baker, Mark 
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:22 PM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: WS, SOA, and the Web

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:38:20AM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> Yes, I agree, I'm just saying I don't think we're at the constraints stage yet with regard to WSA, we are still defining relationships. 

Ok, I guess we disagree after all.

If you are to go beyond saying simple things like "This component
relates to this other component", you are defining constraints.  For
example, if you said, "This component relates to this other component
in that one is a client and the other is a server" then you are
talking about a constraint in that relationship.

Can you provide an example of a relationship which is not similarly

> I would only add as a kind of footnote that WSA seems much broader than the Web architecture, since it extends beyond the Web.  This seems more likely to be the bone of contention to me than the core concepts, relationships, and views.

The WSA is "broad" in the sense of being relatively unconstrained.
That's a bug, not a feature.  It is only by constraining relationships
between elements that useful properties emerge.  The null style[1] is
even broader than WSA, but people don't use it since it is, by
definition, good for nothing.

The Web is broad in that it defines a universal space for *all*
information, be it for human or machine consumption.

May I suggest followups to either www-ws or www-talk?  Thanks.

 [1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_1

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 13:49:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:06 UTC