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

Re: Another try at HTTP binding

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:27:55 -0500
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: Web Services Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040119102755.Q25253@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi Jacek,

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:37:56PM +0100, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 06:49, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > 1) Is it good practice to extract part of your content to parameterize
> > > your URI?
> > IMO, no.
> > >  If not, what is the best way?
> > Invoke GET on the URI to retrieve a document, and include in that
> > a declaration of how the URI can be parameterized.  This is what forms
> > are for (well, "GET forms" anyhow); see XForms[1] or RDF Forms[2].
> 
> Mark, I see WSDL as very similar to a form language.

Somewhat, I'd say; close enough to bare a resemblance, but different
enough to not be substitutable. 8-)

>  A form describes an
> interface to a human user,

An HTML form would, yes.  But, for example, I designed RDF Forms to be
usable by automata, not humans.

> a WSDL describes an interface to a developer
> or to a system.

Right.

I suppose that the difference here is that a typical use of a form
describes a resource to which a particular data format can be submitted,
while a typical use of a WSDL document describes a data format *and*
an interface.  In other words, a form assumes a constrained interface.

> If a set of resources identified by a parametrizable URI is a web
> service, it should be describable using WSDL.

If I'm interpreting that correctly, yes!

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 10:29:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT