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

RE: Section 1.6 and REST - Can we make this more clear and useful ?

From: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:40:46 -0500
Message-ID: <009AD9C866C5DE458E7EF528604A9F9C18682D@amereast-ems2.boston.amer.iona.com>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Mike,

One reason I brought up this issue is that on page 13 of the current draft, section 1.6.3 it says there are two major classes of Web services, one of them REST-compliant.  Above that is text saying that "...many people see it as a model for how to build Web services."  This may be correct, but if we are defining a Web service in this document, it isn't clear whether or not we are implying that REST compliant interactions are included in the definition.

Moving this text will help, but I also think we have to be careful when we use a term we've spent a lot of time defining.

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 12:05 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Section 1.6 and REST - Can we make this more clear and
useful ?



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:49 AM
> To: Francis McCabe; Michael Champion
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Section 1.6 and REST - Can we make this more 
> clear and useful ?
> 
 
> What I'd really like to see is a consensus definition of a 
> Web service, and some compare and contrast between that 
> definition and REST, but I would strongly recommend against 
> creating an alternate definition of a Web service based on 
> REST.  If the two were the same we would not be having these 
> endless debates!

We agreed back in July that SOAP and WSDL are intrinsic to the definition of
what we're doing, so I agree that we are not even considering "creating an
alternate definition of a Web service based on REST."  I admit that putting
this discussion in the Introduction could tend to confuse that issue, so I
understand why this is an issue for you.  We do want to stress that SOAP and
REST are not polar opposites but can be complementary.  I'm not sure exactly
where to do that, in section 1.6 or the new Stakeholders section on REST.

> 
> And as I said in reply to Mike I think it would be great to 
> move the discussion to the stakeholders section.

Yup, I think we're in synch here -- Eric, Mike, and Frank anyway.
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2004 12:40:56 GMT

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