RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion

Agree.  I did not intend to say that late binding is not useful and I think
that your examples are interesting.  In fact -- have you considered writing
up some sort of use case(s)?

-----Original Message-----
From: margaret lyell [mailto:mlyell@mitre.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 1:53 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: Lyell,Margaret J.
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion






Hi,
My comments are inline.

Best regards,
Margaret 

> 
>   
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> Message-ID: 
> <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E2EAE3F@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
> From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
> To: "'Francis McCabe'" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:01:44 -0700
> Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
> 
> I agree rather strongly with your statement, "It is my assertion that 
> that includes being able to handle the standard (even ancient) ways 
> that business has been conducted".  Unfortunately, to my mind that 
> means looking at how EDI works.  REALLY works.  And in general that 
> does NOT include discovery of business partners or any of this late 
> binding stuff.  The relationships and processes are set up early and 
> carefully by people.  I absolutely cannot imagine the people who 
> actually are responsible for these business processes accepting 
> automated discovery and other automated things involving semantics 
> other than at the end of a LONG evolutionary process.  The risks would 
> be too high, and anybody who is doing that sort of business is by 
> nature risk averse.

While I think that B2B is an extremely important arena for the deployment of
web services, 
there are other usage scenarios for which discovery (and some elements of
semantic interoperability) and late binding would be useful features.
Consider the case in which emergency response teams from various
organizations need to provide each other with information. Any particular
group of teams 
would be formed in an ad-hoc manner, presumably from federal, state, local,
and non-gov. organization groups. Web services could assist with rapid
information exchange. But, I don't think that well-established mappings done
by people could all be done ahead of time. The use of ontologies in the
narrower domain of emergency/rescue services would be of great use here.

Also, there is the arena of consumer to business (C2B) scenarios [and maybe
C2C as well ].

Over the past decade, businesses have been very dynamic, with mergers,
acquisitions, spin-offs. If a web services architecture *allowed* for some
level of discovery, semantic information availablity (ontologies ?), and
late binding, then a company could incorporate the web service activities of
its latest acquisition more rapidly. 



> 
> In other words, I like your 3 and 4, but probably not 1 (depending on 
> how one interprets it) and certainly not 2.  And I still agree 
> strongly with Suresh's proposed statement.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:57 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
> 
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 07:08  AM, Damodaran, Suresh wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > From the discussions so far in this thread, is there a consensus 
> > that "though defining semantic equivalence of functional behavior is 
> > an interesting idea, it is very ill defined to be considered a 
> > requirement of Web Service Architecture"
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Suresh
> > Sterling Commerce
> 
> This is a straw man; a very poor implement with which to beat a dead 
> horse. On the other hand, simply wishing away a problem doesn't magick
> (sic) it away.
> 
> We ignore semantics at our peril. Let me repeat, the game is `doing 
> business on the Internet' and `its my system talking to yours' when 
> `we met 3 milliseconds ago'. If you can achieve this without explicit 
> semantics I'd like to see how to do it.
> 
> CORBA `failed' because it required a prior agreement between 
> programmers -- i.e., a time scale of months if not years to get stuff 
> through OMG. It is also incredibly fragile because of its very early 
> binding character. I am not advocating CORBA over SOAP.
> 
> On the other hand, `web services as RPC using SOAP' doesn't work 
> either. The Internet is a public forum, and that changes everything.
> 
> In order to transform web services from `something that shows promise' 
> to `something that delivers value to customers' you need to address 
> real business needs, not just those that it is easy or convenient to 
> handle. It is my assertion that that includes being able to handle the 
> standard (even ancient) ways that business has been conducted. It also 
> includes taking maximum advantage of the potential offered by the 
> public forum.
> 
> If we fail in our vision then we will fail to make a difference and 
> web services will be yet another technological roadkill. On the other 
> hand, if we adopt a strong goal -- of enabling people to conduct 
> business in a standards enabled fashion -- then we will have something 
> to be proud of.
> 
> I believe that this calls for:
> 
> 1. A vision of web services as a deployment platform for doing 
> automated business in a public forum 2. A capability for discovering 
> potential business partners 3. A facility of doing business that 
> reflects the natural flow of information during a business 
> relationship 4. An environment in which trust and security is 
> fundamental
> 
> Frank McCabe
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:46 AM
> > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public 
> > discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it's best if we concentrate on developing the reference 
> > architecture as "job No. 1" rather than try to reach conclusion on 
> > the extent to which
> > semantic inferences are integral.
> >
> > The industry really needs guidance on what a web service is and 
> > isn't, and what is and is not included in a Web services 
> > architecture that does more
> > than the basics.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:07 PM
> > To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> > Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public 
> > discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:18 PM
> >> To: Champion, Mike
> >> Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> >> Subject: Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public 
> >> discussion
> >>
> >>
> >> The bottom line: avoid phrasing the question in terms of 
> >> equivalence, instead phrase the question in terms of `have I heard 
> >> of this name before'?
> >
> > My bottom line is
> >
> >>>> concepts like semantic equivalence that
> >>>> could create expectations well beyond what Web Services can 
> >>>> actually deliver today.
> >
> > I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing and using technologies using 
> > "a graph of concepts that a web service provider  publishes to 
> > describe his or her
> > service. A client applies a matching test to that graph -- which might
> > include getting references from other graphs -- to see if the graph is
> > congruent with his desired service."  Maybe I'm not looking in the right
> > places, but I just don't see that in the real world of web services
> > today.
> >
> > Thus, it is IMHO inappropriate to *require* the WSA to accomodate 
> > ideas which *may* prove powerful, until their practical value has 
> > been demonstrated.  The W3C -- to bang one of my favorite drums, 
> > sorry -- is most successful when working to standardize practice, 
> > and least successful when trying to do computer science by 
> > committee.  I would be very happy to incorporate field-tested 
> > semantic inference technology into the WSA, but I
> > can't agree to require it based on the current state of the art.
> >
> 
>   
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
>    * Next message: Ugo Corda: "RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services -
public discussion"
>    * Previous message: Mark Baker: "Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of
Services - public discussion"
>    * Maybe in reply to: Damodaran, Suresh: "[RTF] Behavior definition of
Services - public discussion"
>    * Next in thread: Ugo Corda: "RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services
- public discussion"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]



--
703-883-6509 (phone)
mlyell@mitre.org

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 15:22:45 UTC