- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:16:59 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 03:44:24PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Substantial investments are being made in fielding web > service technologies for mission critical systems including > homeland security. The statement 'this is hard' from the > mail cited below is not convincing given that web services > are being fielded. It may be the case that no obstacles > to their implementation that challenge the architecture > have been presented, so no actions are required (ie, > works fine with OFWeb). Hah! 8-) I have to agree with Len though, I'd like to see the TAG spend some time on Web services. To date, there's been some great input on specific issues such as support for GET in SOAP 1.2, but no general examination of the architectural assumptions made by Web services, such as answering their raison-d'etre question, "Is an architecture premised on the concept of services exposing interfaces specific to their purpose, necessary or desirable?". Or alternately, "In what cases does the uniform interface of HTTP not suffice as a network based services model?". Also, to Noah's note, I don't think the Semantic Web needs much in the way of attention from the TAG. It is, IMHO (and I've spent a considerable amount of time evaluating it), largely consistent with Web architecture and even REST, save for a couple of relatively minor issues[1][2] (at least when compared with those facing Web services, IMO). On the other hand, there may well be other issues that my investigations haven't identified... Cheers, [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14 [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfAndMediaTypes Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 16:16:27 UTC