W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Safety and WSDL

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:56:32 -0500
Message-Id: <60FE47D2-5FB6-11D8-BFA2-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

On Feb 14, 2004, at 10:54 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 05:20:32PM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
>> I strongly disagree that there isn't experience in the web 
>> architecture wrt
>> "safe" operations.  In fact, I'd argue that the web architecture is
>> completely dependent upon GET being "safe".
>
> Yup.  The Web wouldn't work at all if GET could not be assumed safe.

I would be much happier if we didn't perpetuate the misreading of my 
message that I said we didn't have experience with safe operations. I 
said we didn't have experience *to my knowledge* of *describing* safe 
operations in WSDL. Or perhaps clearer, in marking arbitrary WSDL 
operations as safe and then doing stuff with them.

I actually *do* have some experience with an *analgous* virtue, "being 
information gathering only" at the DAML-S/OWL-S level (and how it 
effects *when* you execute a service, i.e., at plan time or only at run 
time), and it's tricky. That work, also, doesn't at all deal with web 
infrastructure issues (like caching by intermediaries). So I am 
hesitant to offer it up as background for this sort of standardization.

So, I find adding safety annotations interesting, but that the case for 
including it in WSDL2.0 is unclear.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2004 07:56:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:26 UTC