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

RE: Normative constraints on the WSA

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 12:08:02 -0400
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Cc: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Baker, Mark" <distobj@acm.org>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Walden Mathews" <waldenm@optonline.net>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9418D14C.89E4B398-ON85256D2A.00587FF2-85256D2A.0058A07C@us.ibm.com>

+1

However, I disagree with Anne's suggestion that Web services focus on 
RPC-centric
services.

Cheers,

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 05/18/2003 10:11:04 AM:

> 
> Anne,
> 
> Yes, this sounds like a good idea.  Let's focus on the current problem, 
defining an architecture 
> for Web services as we currently understand them, and then as a second 
effort, or next version, 
> consider proposals for incorporating more of REST and Semantic Web.
> 
> I think the debate dates back to the original XML Protocols Workshop in 
Amsterdam, which was May 
> 2000 ;-).  I think it was Henry Thompson who proposed a document 
exchange model instead of the 
> SOAP proposal as the basic input for the XML Protocols WG.  And Larry 
Masinter and others, if I 
> remember correctly, made suggestions along this line when we were 
developing the XML Protocols WG charter.
> 
> The trouble with the REST oriented proposals then, as now, is that they 
are too different from how
> programs currently work and are modeled and designed.  It would be a lot 
more work to map a pure 
> document exchange model (i.e. all state is in the document) to existing 
programs than it is to map
> the SOAP model.
> 
> Over time, the industry may move more toward the pure document exchange 
model.  And SOAP does 
> include a document oriented interaction type that provides some 
foundation for this.  But let's 
> defer this step till after we've worked out the architecture for the 
current world. Yes.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:26 AM
> To: Newcomer, Eric; Walden Mathews; Baker, Mark; Cutler, Roger
> (RogerCutler)
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Normative constraints on the WSA
> 
> 
> Eric,
> 
> For the most part I agree with you. The world has adopted the current
> generation of Web services (very RPC-oriented, and not very RESTful) for 
a
> reason. It's simple, familiar, vendor-neutral, and it has wide support 
by
> all vendors. It helps people integrate systems better than any previous
> RPC-oriented middlware technology.
> 
> This current generation of Web services technology uses (abuses?) the 
Web.
> But it is NOT the Web. It is RPC-oriented middleware -- it is
> service-centric rather than resource-centric. It's about verbs rather 
than
> nouns. If I recall correctly, the folks that originally came together in
> April 2001 to talk about Web services and that recommended the immediate
> formation of this group weren't even thinking about REST at the time. We
> were thinking about RPC. And we wanted to define an over-arching
> architecture for this type of middleware.
> 
> I think that's what this group should focus on.
> 
> At the same time, I think that it would be an excellent endeavor to work 
on
> the next generation of Web services -- a RESTful version of Web 
services.
> I'd love to see another Working Group started to focus on this work. I 
just
> don't think that this work should interfere any further with the 
immediate
> work at hand.
> 
> It's been more than 2 years since we came together and agreed that 
defining
> the WSA was a top priority. Eric is correct that the W3C is in danger of
> losing its relevance in Web services. It just takes too long for 
anything to
> happen in this venue.
> 
> And one more point regarding Eric's predicted response from the RESTful
> folks:
> > 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.
> 
> Most of the retail commerce success is based on CGI/ASP/JSP -- which 
very
> definitely tunnels method calls through HTTP. It isn't RESTful.
> 
> Regards,
> Anne
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Newcomer, Eric
> > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 1:50 PM
> > To: Walden Mathews; Baker, Mark; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Normative constraints on the WSA
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 12:08:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:19 GMT