Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

Hi Roy,

On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 04:49:32PM +0200, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> This does not mean that both "have" visiblity or that one has visibility
> and the other does not.  Visibility is a scalar property -- one design
> will have more or less than another.

Yes, of course.

>  The open question is whether a
> self-descriptive syntax that depends on non-standard interfaces by
> reference will have enough visibility to satisfy the firewall admins.
> We don't know the answer to that question.

We don't know it, but we have an abundance of empirical evidence which
suggests that generic (not necessarily uniform) interfaces are required
for large scale deployment.  This isn't just a firewall issue of course;
that was just one example where visibility is important.

>  WSA has been explicitly
> chartered to explore that design space.

Respectfully, I disagree.  That may be a constructive ex post facto
justification for its existence, but ask any Web services proponent and
they'll tell you that they're enabling something which is currently not
enabled within the constraints of Web architecture; machine-to-machine
communication.  I'm personally content to consider this as a competition
between two architectural styles, but the WSA WG has explicitly rejected
the notion that Web architecture offers a solution to problems such as
automated airline ticket purchasing (the canonical beyond-getStockquote
example).  I believe that if the TAG told them otherwise (or, if one
TAG member in particular were told otherwise), that they would listen,
and at least begin to consider what parts of such a solution to borrow
for Web services.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 15:30:10 UTC