- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 12:18:30 -0700
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> From: Eric Newcomer [mailto:eric.newcomer@iona.com]
> But it would seem inevitable that
> SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI -- perhaps more correctly the services and
> functionality they represent -- have a place in the scheme of things.
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
>3 - I strongly favor functional definition of web service
> within a broad echnical framework. That is, I like saying that
> web services have to use URI's and XML, I don't like saying they
> have to use WSDL and/or UDDI.
We might be converging on something here ... A web service is defined by the
FUNCTIONALITY of SOAP, WSDL, and perhaps UDDI; those are in some sense
"ideal type" definitions of a web service, but so long as the interface is
rigorously defined using some combination of URIs and XML, we agree that it
is a "web service." Are we getting there?
Actually, discovery ("UDDI functionality") probably doesn't have to be as
rigorously defined as the envelope format and message exchange pattern
(SOAP's functionality) and the actual format of the invocation/response
(WSDL's functionality). An "invitation only" service is still a "web
service" ... Does anyone disagree?
Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 14:19:03 UTC