RE: A priori CSF

I think I need a little more detail. I'm a bit baffled by the "generic
language" term.

Ruminating on the topic, (I realize that I'm diving into solution rather
than staying at requirements) we could define a convention such that if you
request an unqualified GET from the URL (without submitting necessary input
a la REST), you will receive its service description.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:04 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: A priori CSF
>
>
> Oops, I meant to add this to that last message ...
>
> In [1], I suggested this;
>
>   Basically, what I think it would be useful to do is for us to answer the
>   following question; if all you have is a URI, and no other information,
>   what is the richest possible application interface that can be specified
>   a priori?
>
> Taking a step back from this, what I want to do is to take a look at
> things that are common about *all* Web services, so that some a priori
> behaviour, no matter how basic, can be defined.  Our working definition
> of a Web service states that they all have a URI.  I would also guess
> that it's safe to assume that all Web services have state.  Plus, some
> eventually get retired, or move someplace else, etc..
>
> But in general, no matter what commonality we determine exists between
> all Web services, the CSF could be something like this;
>
>   define a "generic language for Web services" that can be used to
>   interact with any Web service knowing only its URI
>
> Does this make sense to people, or should I go into more detail?
>
>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Apr/0030.html
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
>

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 18:02:48 UTC