- From: Huhns, Michael <huhns@engr.sc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:56:14 -0400
- To: "Ian Dickinson" <ian.dickinson@hp.com>
- Cc: <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Thanks Ian. These are interesting examples, but neither seems to represent a stand-alone receive service. Data-gathering for security is a service that is invoked by a group of citizens. Its input is a representation of some behavior of individuals and its output is maybe a report on vulnerabilities or oddities. An individual does not invoke it and it certainly does more than just receive data. Joe Hacker might invoke a keystroke-logging service on my computer. It would record and return a log of my keystrokes, so it is more than a receive from his standpoint. From my standpoint, if I were unaware of it, then it would not qualify as a service to me. If I were aware of it, it would be a composite of two services: receive my keystrokes and communicate them to Joe Hacker. However, your examples have inspired me to come up with my own counterexamples. Here is an example that might qualify as a receive-only service (thus countering my own claim that it would never be useful). Imagine that I am writing a program to send and receive email and I want to test the sending part. I don't want to annoy my friends with test messages. A service that would simply receive an email and ignore it would be useful to me. Second, if my software agents ever progress to where they become religious, then a prayer service might also be considered receive-only and useful to them. Cheers, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Ian Dickinson [mailto:ian.dickinson@hp.com] Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 8:21 AM To: Huhns, Michael Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: granularity/definition of a "service" Huhns, Michael wrote: > A "service" that only receives is equivalent to a write-only memory. I > have never found that to be a useful service and would like to hear > about the situation you are imagining where it would be a coherent > stand-alone functionality. You could argue that, for the average citizen, data-gathering by state security services is a write-only memory. Likewise, any situation where information is captured that is intended to be read only be third-parties, not by the capturer him/her self. Trojan-horse keystroke loggers would be an example (not that you'd choose to invoke such a service from a UDDI registry :-) Cheers, Ian Ian Dickinson HPLabs, Bristol, UK
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2004 15:56:21 UTC