RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:21 PM
> To: Joseph Hui
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> 
> 
> A Web Service must be defined as having the properties that it can be 
> decribed and discovered.  Both the Web service and it's 
> description must 
> be discoverable.

No, and no. This thread of email already contain multiple explanations
of why.

> Definition ==> A Web service can be described and discovered.

As I've already explained using real-world examples, neither of these is
necessarily true (other than the discovery via URI that Mark mentioned).

Neither discovery (as in UDDI-like services) nor description distinguish
Web Services from prior art, nor are they found in 100% of existing Web
Services systems. They are therefore not needed to define Web Services.

--steve

> 
> - James M Snell/Fresno/IBM
>     Web services architecture and strategy
>     Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
>     544.9035 TIE line
>     559.587.1233 Office
>     919.486.0077 Voice Mail
>     jasnell@us.ibm.com
>  Programming Web Services With SOAP, O'reilly & Associates, ISBN 
> 0596000952 
> 
> ==
> Have I not commanded you?  Be strong and courageous.  Do not 
> be terrified, 
> 
> do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you 
> wherever you 
> go.  
> - Joshua 1:9
> 
> Sent by:        www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> To:     <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> cc: 
> Subject:        RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> 
> 
> 
> By now IMHO we the WG have made the progress that D&D ought to be
> in the def.  (Have we not?  I don't want to be presumptuous here.)
> So the issue to be settled is whether D&D is already accounted for
> in URI.
> 
> In my view URI is for addressability.  A globally unique ID offers
> no intrinsic value to a resource's discovery.  E.g. there's no way
> johny, seeking to buy books, can discover a book seller by
> inferring from a URI like http://www.amazon.com.
> Mark's made some good points; yet I find the 
> "D&D-accounted-for-in-URI"
> argument too tenuous.  Withi the web context, D&D is an integral
> (as Sandeep put it) part of WS.  It's not a property that can be
> assumed by default, thus calling it out is warranted.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Joe Hui
> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> =========================================
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 6:53 AM
> > To: Sandeep Kumar
> > Cc: Vinoski Stephen; Joseph Hui; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
> >
> >
> > Sandeep,
> >
> > > If D&D are not an integral part of a Web Service defintion,
> >
> > I was claiming that discoverability *is* an integral part of the
> > definition.  It's just already accounted for by defining that a Web
> > service be URI identifiable.
> >
> > I know this is a bit different than some Web service work 
> people have
> > already done, but this is (IMO) one of those times where our
> > mandate to
> > be integrated with Web architecture effects our work.
> >
> > > pl help me define
> > > how would you define a Web (or a Network) of Web Services,
> > the participants.
> > >
> > > At a high-level, they must at least have the same
> > characteristics. If not,
> > > it would be much harder to reason about them 
> semantically, deal with
> > > managing & monitoring them.
> >
> > Sorry, I'm unclear what you're asking.
> >
> > MB
> > --
> > Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> > http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 14:12:38 UTC