W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 20:21:42 -0400
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF228F1349.A0F1CC26-ON85256D30.0001DE76@lotus.com>

Mark, we seem to go round and round on this, but let me try it one more 

* I think we are all agreed that there advantages to a limited, uniform 
set of verbs such as RESTs GET/POST insofar as those are applicable to a 
broad set of problems.  SOAP now encourages their use.

* I claim that there is an additional need.  I have customers, 
particularly those who use strongly-typed compiled languages, that need to 
prepare code that will help them use some particular service.  For 
example, they wish to compile C or Java or Cobol code that populates a 
purchase order, requests a stock quote or whatever.   I claim that 
something like WSDL gives them what they need:  a description of some 
particular service, in a machine-readable form that tools can use to help 
them build their code.  You seem to object that such contracts are un-Web 

Maybe I could ask this way:  do you believe that my customers should not 
be looking for such a description?  If so, how would you propose that they 
build their applications?  I can assure that dynamic inspection of each 
SOAP body that comes back is not what they typically want to do (though 
SOAP can support it, and WSDL is indeed optional.)  Is there another 

Even with the WSDL description, safe requests can be sent as GET, allowing 
the web infrastructure that cares only about that level of contract to 
leverage the power of a limited set of verbs.  I still don't see the 

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
05/20/2003 03:35 PM

        To:     www-tag@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:28:46PM -0400, Mike Champion wrote:
> So, could you be specific as to the principle of the Web architecture 
> against which you believe that the current WS Architecture document is 
> error"?

Mike, I'm proposing this issue as I believe it to have "architectural
impact", as the TAG charter[1] says (under "Issue Resolution").  That is
all.  I wasn't aware that I needed to reference some normative
requirement on the WSA WG's work in order to do this.

Perhaps the raising of this issue will help provide some focus for some
of the still-to-be-filled-out sections in the "Architecture of the World
Wide Web" document, such as 5, or even 6?

BTW, I wanted to publicly thank you for your patience in working with me
on that section.  I'm confident that what is there is an improvement
over what would have been there had we not had that discussion.  But
there remains that disagreement which I feel is too important to not
address as a high priority.


 [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/07/19-tag

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
  Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 20:31:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:59 UTC