Re: whenToUseGet-7 Why call it WEB Serivces? (was: RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7))

On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 17:26, wrote:
> Actually, I think the "Web" in Web services is important for reasons that 
> may be of significance to the TAG.
> Q: What makes the Web as we know it different from traditional 
> terminal-to-host systems for information browsing?  A: the Web provides 
> for worldwide interconnectivity on an ad hoc basis, without the need to 
> preplan or preinstall individual connections. Indeed,  the word "Web" 
> seems to emphasize that any-to-any connectivity. 
> Q. What makes Web services different from more traditional means of 
> interconnecting applications?  A. The same thing.  For the first time, we 
> are building application interconnection architectures with late binding 
> and ad hoc interconnectivity on a global scale.  My application can talk 
> to your application, anywhere in the world, with no pre-planning.   Hence 
> "Web" services.

So Web Services has ambitions to be as successful as the Web in a few
slightly similar ways.  I don't think that establishes much meaningful

> Not coincidentally, we are using URI's to name application resources. 
> Using URI's to name Web services not only shares the naming mechanism, it 
> allows us to integrate the two worlds (my web page can link to your 
> service, your service can return the URL of my web page).  So, it really 
> is one Web. 

And that usage is one of the most widely criticized aspects of Web
Services in their present form, as that usage diverges quite strongly
from "Web" usage of URIs.  Reuse of HTTP URIs is a particular problem,
one that helps identify Web Services' serious incompatibility with the

> Maybe, as some believe, REST will be fundamental to achieving ad hoc 
> application interconnectivity.  Maybe REST will just be a piece of the 
> puzzle -- or maybe Web services will achieve its universal 
> interconnectivity using different conventions such as UDDI and WSDL. 
> Regardless, I think there is a clear sense in which the term "Web" is 
> appropriate.  BTW, and I know this is controversial:  I prefer to view 
> REST as a means of achieving the Web's goals, not as a defining 
> characteristic of the web. 

I prefer that we find some criteria which define the Web as something
separate from the Internet in order that these conversations might have
some shared foundation on which to arrive at useful judgments.

Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!

Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 19:12:41 UTC