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

Re: single interface/service (was: Minutes, 3 July 2003 WSDesc telcon)

From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:41:17 -0700
Message-ID: <3F0C8BFD.3070806@tibco.com>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Consensus favors single interface for service!
> * jeffm the crowd cheers
> * sanjiva wonders whether we'll be back to square one on the list as 
>           today appears to be a lightly attended call

Amy Lewis was unfortunately not on this call, but as you know, she's 
been pretty vocal in opposition to this.

I agree with her arguments, which in brief are these:
1. it isn't really simpler to link services via a targetResource 
identifier, it is more complex than using XML containment. And in fact, 
logically, containment, not linking, is what is being modelled here.
2. "targetResource" is an unintutive name for the linking concept (if 
not for everyone, then for many people).

See also Frank McCabe's recent comments in WSA:

and a longer discussion in
(which reveals IMO that even a savvy group of people were confused
by targetResource).

FYI Web service composition has been a recent topic of discussion in 
WS-Choreography, see:

But IMO a major function of a choreography description is to model the 
pattern of data flows that connect multiple participants together.
It doesn't replace the static grouping that WSDL provides. I think 
choreography is solving a different set of problems (despite some of the 
above referenced messages that seem to suggest otherwise).

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 01:00:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:43 UTC