RE: Normative constraints on the WSA

+1

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 05/17/2003 01:50:06 PM:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> The trouble with all this, as we've said many times, is that Web 
services are not the same as the 
> Web.  They are not indented for the same usage patterns, developer 
audience, or business model. 
> 
> Let's especially remember that technology by itself is useless - it is 
only useful within the 
> context of its application.  Web services are not intended to solve the 
same problem as the Web, 
> and businesses are not interested in academic exercises like REST and 
other characterizations of 
> what is "good" vs "bad" architecture, what is "ancient" vs "modern" etc.
> 
> I doubt Web services are progress.  But I don't think that's bad, since 
they have significant 
> application in business.  The Web does not.
> 
> Let's please forget about REST, the Semantic Web, and the other academic 
exercises and focus on 
> solving problems for business. 
> 
> The W3C is already in danger of losing its relevance in Web services, 
but perhaps that's self 
> evident by the traffic on this list, which grows increasingly "REST-ish" 
and less and less 
> oriented toward improving Web services as they have been accepted.
> 
> Criticisms founded on purely technical grounds or on the subject of 
"architectural purity" 
> completely miss the point of what we need to do.  At the end of the day, 
marketplace acceptance is
> the only measure that matters for a standard, and the current Web 
services have been widely adopted. 
> 
> None of these purity arguments are going to change commercial reality. 
But they can take us 
> further and further away from being relevant.
> 
> I know exactly what the "Web heads" (sorry Spidey!) are going to say: 
The Web is a commercial and
> marketplace success.  Sure it is.  It's great for publishing, academic 
research, and a certain 
> amount of retail commerce.  But that does not mean it is also going to 
succeed at Web services. 
> Almost by definition it is not, since it hasn't.
> 
> So - anyone out there on this list still want to work on Web services? 
Or should we just give in 
> and say that Web services are the same as the Web?
> 
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 10:21 AM
> To: Baker, Mark; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Normative constraints on the WSA
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I pretty much agree with you, except that I don't think it's
> so much about never relaxing constraints as it is about preserving
> most of what succeeds, and allowing slow evolution.  You
> could break the system just as easily by adding the wrong constraints
> as you could by relaxing, judiciously, some existing ones.
> 
> --Walden
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
> To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Normative constraints on the WSA
> 
> 
> >
> > On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:39:46AM -0500, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> wrote:
> > > I don't think that anything in the architecture of the Web, at least 
as
> > > I see it articulated by the TAG or the charter of the WSAWG, says or
> > > implies that the Web must remain the same forever.  As I've stated 
it,
> > > this may seem like a tautology or perhaps as a personally intended 
slur
> > > (not intended this way at all), but I'm beginning to think that in
> > > essence this, or something like it, is a point of real difference of
> > > opinion and approach.
> >
> > Not at all.  But you don't see improvement by relaxing constraints and
> > removing the very properties that got us to where we are today.  You
> > see improvement by *adding* new constraints.  I welcome all innovation
> > on the Web that does just that (see KnowNow), and I reject all
> > "innovation" to the contrary; it isn't innovation, it's taking us back
> > between 20 and 30 years in the evolution of large scale distributed
> > systems.
> >
> > MB
> > --
> > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
> >   Actively seeking contract work or employment
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 18 May 2003 12:04:07 UTC