- From: Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:44:32 -0800
- To: "Vinoski, Stephen" <steve.vinoski@iona.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vinoski, Stephen [mailto:steve.vinoski@iona.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:06 PM > To: Joseph Hui > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."] > > I still have to agree with Mark that you're defining requirements, not > creating a web services definition. I suggest again, as Mark did, that > we work from the one that he and I put together. Is there something > wrong with it? Is ti missing something? Suffice to say my response to Mark the other day also applies here. Per discussion on WS Def during today's telconf, I believe D&D ought to be in. Joe Hui Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service =============================================== > > --steve > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net] > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:59 PM > > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."] > > > > > > > From: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net> > > [snip] > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > > I'm a bit averse to using the terms MUST NOT, SHOULD, and MAY. > > > > They were tided over from IETF. Their virtue in standards discourse > > lies in the technical vigor as defined in RFC 2119. They do tend to > > stiffen up sentences, to the detriment of their literary appeal. :-( > > > > > I'm not sure > > > that we should impose the constraint defined by WSP04. > > > > WSP04 slams a door (a door, not all doors) at those who have funny > > ideas about hacking into a host via web services. It also takes > > away a big rope (not all ropes, a rope nonetheless) that some > > implementors/deployers may hang themselves by accident. > > WSP04 pretty much conveys "web services have a property of being > > hacker unfriendly." (BTW, "safe" could supplant "hacker unfriendly" > > with a leaning toward generality.) > > > > > I think it's useful > > > to include WSP05, although I don't think it's an essential > > aspect of what > > > makes a web service a web service. I'm ambiguous about WSP06. > > > > WSP06 may be thought of as a clause of self-preservation (or > > robustness > > by agnosticism. ;-) > > > > > I think WSP07 goes into too much detail. > > > > Point well taken. Indeed we can do away with the embellishment -- > > the last phrase of the first sentence and the parenthesized text, > > unless others object. > > > > > I think WSP08 gets too much into architecture, > > > and isn't an essential aspect of what makes a web service a > > web service. > > > > WSP08 is about D&D, which differentiates the web service > > model from the > > rest. That is, D&D is one of the properties that WS are made of. > > > > [snip] > > > One recommendation that I would make to Joseph's definition > > is that we not > > > call out any specific technologies (WSDL, UDDI, etc.) in the core > > > definition. Our architecture should provide > recommendations on which > > > technologies to use, not the definition. > > > > I can go along with not calling out specific technologies, and also > > to err on the side of generality (as opposed to specificity) if > > that's the WG's consensus. As stated in a previous message, I'd > > like to also reiterate my position that we should be as specific > > as feasible. > > > > > I'd also prefer to use the more generic term "contract" > > rather than "well > > > defined input/output parameters". > > > > "Contract" can mean different things to different folks in WS. > > Thus one has to be overtly conscious of the context when "contract" > > is invoked. Right off the bat, XLang comes to mind. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joe Hui > > Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 16:44:34 UTC