- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:50:56 -0500 (EST)
- To: steve.vinoski@iona.com (Vinoski, Stephen)
- Cc: jhui@digisle.net (Joseph Hui), www-ws-arch@w3.org
> The definition does not disallow D&D -- rather, it explicitly does not > include them because they are not necessary. URIs, standard internet > protocols, and non-human-driven application-to-application interaction > are key, but D&D are not, as I and others have already explained. Here's my 2c on "D&D". "Discovery", without a doubt, is a key requirement of a web service. What use is one that you can't find? 8-) But going back to our definition, I'd say it's already covered by the point that requires that Web services be identified by URIs. Having a URI means that discovery can be achieved in an infinite number of ways, not just one way. It can be centralized through a mechanism like UDDI (not that UDDI is very URI friendly though, but that will change), or it can be decentralized, such as when I send a URI in an email message, or post one up on my web page. So I'd say that we don't need to spell it out, not because it's not a necessary part of a definition, but because it's already there. 8-) "Description" I see as more ephemeral. I'm not aware of anything that can't be described. So I don't see it as being very useful in a definition. But as a *requirement*, IMO, it's clearly important that an architecture support it. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 21:47:18 UTC