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

RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:08:18 -0700
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wsa-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002701c314bb$41e5e090$fffa000a@beasys.com>
I believe that REST, as a theory, was developed as part of the web
development.  The documentation for REST certainly came after.  But I'm sure
that the constraints, such as generic interface, self-describing data,
layered client-server, caching support, etc. were all thought of before Roy
put pen to paper.

What I'm not sure of, is why the Web services architecture group feels
interested in discussing what "the" web architecture is or isn't.  Seems
that there's another architecture group that has that responsibility.  

And btw, all that "cookies" stuff etc. is definitely NOT on the web.  And I
don't think that's a bad thing, that's just the definition.  It would be
nice if the web arch document went into some detail on this.

I do wish we'd figure out a term for a "non-restful soa" other than
"non-restful" :-)  Some ideas, mostly lame:
- application specific interface SOA
- non-generic interface SOA
- custom interface SOA
- indirect resource manipulation SOA

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Newcomer, Eric
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 8:51 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; Damodaran, Suresh; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-wsa-editors@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
> 
> 
> 
> The only trouble with equating REST and the Web is that the 
> Web existed before REST did.  I also think REST applies more 
> to HTTP 1.1 than HTTP 1.0, so it may also be possible to 
> argue that point of view, too.
> 
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:53 AM
> To: Damodaran, Suresh; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-wsa-editors@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:41 AM
> > To: 'Mike Champion'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Cc: w3c-wsa-editors@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
> > 
> >
> > 
> > 1. Historically, REST style *is* more or less the 
> > architectural style of the WWW 
> > (whether we like it or not!). Not saying it as such would 
> be rewriting
> > history.
> 
> So what are you suggesting ... to eliminate the distinction betweeen
> "the Web" and "REST".  I could live with that, I think, but I don't
> feel comfortable implying that all the non-RESTful stuff
> (CGI scripts, cookies, and statefulness maintained by 
> application servers) is not "the Web."  <grin>
> 
> I think I know where you're going -- maybe I cut TOO sharp a 
> distinction between the Web and the RESTful subset of the
> Web -- but would appreciate specific wording suggestions from
> Suresh or anyone who agrees with him.
> 
> > 2. WSA must be semantic web ready (at least not inhibit)
> 
> Hmm, good point ... we should make some reference to that.  
> Actually, the
> previous draft had a bit on "the description of an SOA is the 
> description of
> the messages" that I meant to keep and apprently didn't.  
> Saying something
> about the potential for Semantic Web technologies to describe 
> the semantics
> as well as syntax of messages might be useful.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 


Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 13:06:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT