RE: granularity/definition of a "service"

Thanks! /dev/null is a good example, and I withdraw my claim that a
receive-only service would not be useful.

The "display" service you describe might have no output, but it does
have an effect, so it seems more than a simple receive.

-----Original Message-----
From: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk [mailto:jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 12:42 PM
To: Huhns, Michael
Cc: David Martin; Monika Solanki; public-sws-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: granularity/definition of a "service"

Quoting "Huhns, Michael" <huhns@engr.sc.edu>:

> 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.

/dev/null on Unix systems is often used as a sink to throw output
away.

Also, something might be receive-only as a service (ie, so far as
it's description in OWL-S or whatever as a service was concerned)
but nonetheless allow the data to be accessed in some other way.
(Perhaps something that projected pictures on a screen would be
an example.)

-- Jeff

Received on Sunday, 19 September 2004 16:58:14 UTC