RE: Closing issue X

Mike,

I fully agree with your remarks.

Thanks for taking the time and effort.

Please, let us go back to the Arch draft.

abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:34 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Closing issue X
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:17 AM
> > To: Newcomer, Eric
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Closing issue X
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Problem; machine-to-machine integration over the Internet. 
> Solution; 
> > services where each has an interface different than the others
> > 
> > That's broken, sorry.  I don't know any other way to say 
> it.  I could 
> > perhaps be more sensitive with my wording, but the message would 
> > remain the same.
> 
> Mark, you've argued this point here for months, and now 
> you've taken it to the TAG.  I strongly suggest that we 
> 
> a) Wait to see if the TAG agrees with you
> 
> b) Wait to see if Web services developers agree with you 
> (after all, they MAY honor the "uniform interface constraint" 
> with SOAP 1.2 and the WSA doc as it stands, you seem to be 
> arguing that this should be a MUST).
> 
> c) Wait to see if Reality agrees with you.  You seem to be 
> making some strong predictions that Web services that ignore 
> that uniform interface constraint will in some sense fail, 
> and those which honor it will succeed. The world is (perhaps 
> unwittingly) performing a giant experiment to test this hypothesis.
> 
> d) In the meantime, make sure that the WSA document is clear 
> that a range of interface definition options are possible, 
> and that best practice has yet to be determined.  
> 
> Telling the people who have been doing business together for 
> years and "know" what interfaces are available that they have 
> to adopt the Uniform Resource Constraint is a non-starter. 
> These folks are using SOAP as is, often with much success.  
> WSDL helps automate things further.  On the other hand, we 
> could reasonably talk about how best to bootstrap Web service 
> interactions between parties that have little or no a priori 
> knowledge of one another.  That is a use case for Web 
> services, clearly.  SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI seem to be moving in 
> a direction that would accomodate the Web more cleanly to 
> discover what services another offers and how to invoke them. 
>  I can easily imagine that some "best practice" language on 
> how offering the HTTP interfaces as a lowest common 
> denominator can assist this bootstrapping process, and 
> certainly some concrete real-world examples of success 
> stories employing this approach, would find a happy home in 
> the WSA document.  
> 
> We have resolved to focus on the document, and on clarifying 
> the rationales for various approaches and the situations in 
> which one or the other is most appropriate.  I invite you to 
> help us incorportate your perspective into the document in an 
> appropriately qualified way rather than continuing to try to 
> persuade us that all perspectives besides your own are "broken."
> 
>