- From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:10:43 -0500
- To: "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hugo, It is good to see "Address based discovery" in the document, and I am in general agreement with your comments, except one. As you know, URL, as defined in [1], includes other protocols apart from http. Though HTTP GET may be listed as a "candidate technology," as you suggest, my preference is not to limit ourselves to HTTP. An application may want to use ftp based service discovery, or smtp based. Or, a SOAP based service discovery (assuming whatever underlying protocols). Just leave the door open for discovery:-) Regards, -Suresh Sterling Commerce [1] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1738.txt -----Original Message----- From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 5:52 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org <snip> S600 Address based Discovery[2] is useful and relates to the "no a priori knowledge" requirement. However, the description proposed is complex: it seems to me that if somebody has a URL for something (a service here), the natural thing to do is to do a GET on it. Under candidate technologies for S600, I would list HTTP GET and the output of the Web Services Description Working Group. It seems to me that WSIL[3] is more a catalog of services and their descriptions, which is a different kind of usage scenario IMO. BTW, I was looking at the specification, and was wondering how generic and how Web service-specific it was. I was wondering if something like RDDL[4] could be used in such a way. Regards, Hugo 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/wd-wsawg-scenarios-05012002.html#S503 2. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/wd-wsawg-scenarios-05012002.html#S600 3. http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-wsilspec.html 4. http://www.rddl.org/ -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Friday, 21 June 2002 10:11:24 UTC