Re: Caveats for Web-friendly service description

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 22:09 +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> I read from your posting that this list especially is *not* targeted at
> such[1] web services and discussions on this list should avoid the  
> term altogether.
> Is that correct?

It is correct that the intent here is not to replace WSDL (I might
disappoint some of our readers, sorry :) and therefore using the term
"web service" would be confusing imho. Web-friendly service description
is a suggestion but we don't want to be seen as unfriendly, do we?

> But then, I feel there should be term for what is actually being  
> described...
> What about:
> 
> - resource
> - Web application
> - RESTful (Web) application

You're not missing anything. I would go for "Web Resource", "Web", or
"Web Application", and trying to avoid the term REST, but that's only my
preference.

Philippe