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

Re: Requesting WSDL Files

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 08:31:42 +0600
Message-ID: <085c01c460b7$3dd530c0$84614109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Hi DaveO,

> Arguably HTTP is based upon the semantics of REST.  Modelling a view 
> of the world through generic verbs performing transfer of state 
> representations is hardly limited to http. 

Agreed. Would you consider NFS RESTful?

> One could argue that WS-RF is mostly REST compliant as it uses
> a constrained set of verbs.  

If that were the interpretation then once you *define* *any* interface
all services that use just that (now fixed) interface would be REST
compliant.

I just don't see how one could consider WS-RF RESTful .. can you 
expand more please?

> FWIW, there *always* seems to be a debate when using a generic verb
> set on how to get representation of the metadata.  The metadata is
> definitely a different resource so it needs either a new verb or URI. 
> I think the Semantic Web folks were debating about an MGET verb.

Taking a protocol independent view, how would that map to say SMTP
or JMS carrying the messages?

> I like the idea of formally specifying an extension/feature/property
> that a service provider could put in their WSDL to say "do x to get
> metadata".  It has the classic bootstrap problem though.

Right .. so I view WS-MetadataExchange like Java's Class object or
COM's QueryInterface method. Every Web service must support being
asked "tell me about yourself" .. just like in Java you can ask any
object for its class and from that get all the metadata necessary
to execute something in it. That of course does not mean that the
Web service implementor has to handle those messages himself (or
herself); the "infrastructure" has to do that.

Sanjiva.
Received on Saturday, 3 July 2004 00:36:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:27 GMT