W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Proposal for Describing Web Services that Refer to Other Web Services: R085

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:37:47 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4058907FB@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:25 AM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for Describing Web Services that Refer to Other
> Web Services: R085
> 
> 
> The point is that there  are services
> available whose addresses are not described by agreed-upon URIs.  That
> being the case, you can invent one, I can invent one, the service
> deployers can invent one, but in general, without an agreed 
> upon scheme, a plethora of URIs is useless, or worse than useless.  
> If some other means of obtaining the address *has* been agreed upon (which

> is the case with J2EE), then there's less impetus to create a URI scheme.
These
> services are effectively unfindable by URI.

+++1  W3C can't just sit back and pontificate about how much better the
world would be if everyone "grokked" the URI-Resource-Representation
paradigm and did the Right Thing.  Even if we all agreed that the world
would be better off!  

Perhaps WSA or the TAG could make the argument that over the long term other
protocols SHOULD define URI schemes along the lines of what Mark was
suggesting, but WSDL 1.2 MUST be accomodating itself to today's realities
rather than asking other organizations to accomodate W3C's vision.
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 10:37:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT