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

RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:04:00 -0500
To: 'Ugo Corda' <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, 'David Booth' <dbooth@w3.org>, "'He, Hao'" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Cc: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <002801c3dac0$698c6350$d1bd0280@scs.ad.cs.cmu.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Ugo Corda
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:42 AM
To: David Booth; He, Hao
Cc: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

The way I understood Hao's statement is different. In my view it refers to
the fact that in a given SOA system (e.g. a set of Web services
participating in some kind of choreography/orchestration) the relevant
interfaces remain the same (e.g. in BPEL you define the WSDL interfaces
once, even though at run time you may associate different Web services to
those interfaces, even dynamically).

My clue to that interpretation is the reference to a "small set of
interfaces", which I understand to mean that we are talking about a single
SOA system and its associated interfaces.

So the word "ubiquitous" might be confusing, but something else like
"consistent" might be appropriate to illustrate the concept I mentioned


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:50 AM
> To: He, Hao
> Cc: 'Champion, Mike'; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> At 03:25 PM 1/12/2004 +1100, He, Hao wrote:
> >. . .
> >2. Two main architectural constraints of SOA: 1) A small set 
> of simple and 
> >ubiquitous interfaces to all participating software agents.
> I think we better NOT say "ubiquitous" here, because that 
> makes it sounds 
> like Web services offer a "uniform interface" (a la REST).  
> According to 
> REST folks, one of the problems of WS is that they do NOT 
> obey the uniform 
> interface requirement.  Instead, each WS defines its own interfaces.
> I think we can just drop the word "ubiquitous" and the above 
> would be fine.
> -- 
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 12:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:10 UTC