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

> No, I don't believe we have consensus that D&D needs to be in the
> definition. 

So we don't then.

> Mark summed it up perfectly in
                    ^^^^^^^^^?
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Feb/0191.html>.

So you _perfectly_ missed its third paragraph and its overtone!
Well, I won't bother with getting into the petty business of
cautioning on the liberal use of "perfectly."  
Anyway, I already shared my view pertaining to Mark's msg in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0006.html ;
and I'm leaving it at that, unless something new comes up.

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
======================================
> 
> --steve
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net]
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:56 PM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > 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 16:35:41 UTC