- From: Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:51:45 -0800
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Champion Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, <steve.vinoski@iona.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Hi Mark, [snip] > > So, instead of trying to compile a list which shall soon > > become amiss no matter how exhaustive we can make it now with > > existing definitions, I'd propose we take a different tack, > > to define web services by properties, which are more likely > > to remain invariant with time. > > As Daniel said, this definitely looks like a set of requirements. But > requirements do not a definition make. 8-) Requirements may make no definition. Properties can. Besides, requirements met may be prosperities become, and vice versa ;-) A WS definition goes a long way towards shaping the requirements of the WS-Arch to be defined. I only mentioned the properties also sounded like requirements. (Of course I'm glad to see Daniel can make good use of them for meeting our goals and deadlines. :-) Anyway, I did state my reasoning behind the def-by-properties tack and would rather leave it to the group's consensus than protract a WS-Def debate that is widely known for being, well, protracting. Cheers, Joe Hui Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service =================================== > I think the definition Steve and I came up is a sort of necessary and > sufficient set of features that a service must have in order to be > called a Web service. I'm also strongly of the opinion that we > *should* define what a web service is separate from what the > requirements of an architecture should be to support them. There's > additional value add there. > > 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, 25 February 2002 17:51:51 UTC