- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:32:34 -0500 (EST)
- To: michael.mahan@nokia.com
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Mark, > > I respectfully disagree that discovery is accounted for by defining that a Web service is uri identifiable. Uri identifiable enables accessibility, but is not sufficient to enable discovery. Discovery means "to make known or visible"[1] and hence is the process of acquiring the resource identifier and optionally, deciding whether it is a resource worth binding. This is a good point. I think I may have been lose with my words before. What a URI provides is "discoverability", the ability to be discovered. It is clearly not a discovery mechanism itself, which I would define to be a means by which one becomes aware of a URI (though URI resolution is clearly a discovery mechanism). I think it is critical that a Web service be discoverable (which being identified by a URI provides), and that an architecture support their discovery. Looking back over the comments in this thread, I believe that this would appear to be a point of concensus. Am I right? As for description, as I said before, I consider that a no-op from the point of view of a definition of a Web service; all things are describable. But if it would help us reach concensus, I would accept the addition of "a Web service must be describable" to the working definition that Steve and I have discussed. 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 15:28:50 UTC