- From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:48:55 -0800
- To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
steve, Good point - I did miss that. I did read it as denying human interactions, my mistake. My amendment still stands - why mention human interaction at all. One, as a service, would implement a capability (either by proxing or aggregating or by directly performing stuff), define and describe it and wait ... It really doesn't care who on the other end sends a message (of course, the message would be based on IP), but when it receives a message, do some processing and would send back a result or do appropriate stuff in case of other interaction patterns. As a side note, the implicit assumption is that, by defining and describing the interfaces (and bindings) in a standard way, we are achieving discovery. cheers | -----Original Message----- | From: Vinoski, Stephen [mailto:steve.vinoski@iona.com] | Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:14 AM | To: Krishna Sankar | Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org | Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."] | | | Note that the definition does not deny direct human involvement. It | states only that direct human involvement is not required, which is not | the same as saying that it's not allowed. | | --steve | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com] | > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 12:08 AM | > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org | > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."] | > | > | > Hi, | > | > Two amendments : | > | > 1. What does the "through an application | > programming interface capable of | > being described," buy us ? Why not just "capable of being described by | > standard formats" ? | > | > 2. Why specifically deny direct human involvement | > ? Do we care who (or | > what) interacts so long as the interactions are | > internet-based protocols ? | > | > IMHO, | > "A web service is a software application or component | > identified by a URI, | > whose interfaces and binding are capable of being described | > by standard | > formats and supports direct interactions with other software | > applications or | > components via internet-based protocols". | > | > As Heather says, OK, everyone can open fire now. :-) | > | > cheers & have a nice weekend | > | > | -----Original Message----- | > | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org | > [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On | > | Behalf Of Vinoski, Stephen | > | Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:08 PM | > | To: James M Snell | > | Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org | > | Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."] | > | | > | | > | OK, James, if we take your inputs along with those of | > Heather, Mark, and | > | others, and apply them to my original strawman definition including | > | Mark's amendment, we get: | > | | > | "A web service is a software application or component | > identified by a | > | URI that, through an application programming interface | > capable of being | > | described, supports direct interactions with other | > software applications | > | or components via internet-based protocols, where said | > interactions do | > | not require direct human involvement." | > | | > | Are we there? :-) | > | | > | --steve | > | | > | | > | > -----Original Message----- | > | > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com] | > | > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 6:21 PM | > | > To: Vinoski, Stephen | > | > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org | > | > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."] | > | > | > | > | > | > Stephen, | > | > | > | > We actually are on the same page here. We both seem to agree | > | > that yes, | > | > Web services can be described and discovered, but we disagree | > | > whether or | > | > not those properties need to be called out explicitly in the | > | > definition. | > | > You seem to be saying no, I'm saying yes they do. The reason | > | > is the same | > | > as why we explicitly define Web resources as having unique URI | > | > identifiers. Of course Web resources have identifiers, | > | > they're objects | > | > and all objects have identifiers -- of what use is it to | > | > explicitly call | > | > out that point? The answer is that by stating the fact, | > we lay the | > | > groundwork for standardizing how those identifiers are created, | > | > represented, communicated, etc. We're basically stating that Web | > | > resources need to have a standardized method of | > | > identification. For Web | > | > Services, explicitly calling out description and discovery as | > | > properties | > | > of a Web service indicate that there needs to be standardized | > | > mechanisms | > | > for description and discovery -- regardless of whether or not | > | > every Web | > | > service actually implements those standards. Because a Web | > | > Service can be | > | > described and discovered, the overall Web Services | > | > Architecture needs to | > | > take into account standardized mechanisms for description and | > | > discovery. | > | > I'm not saying we have to create such standards here, just | > | > acknowledge | > | > their existence and role. Make sense? | > | > | > | > - 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 | > | > | > | > To: James M Snell/Fresno/IBM@IBMUS | > | > cc: | > | > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some | > Thoughts ..."] | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > Given that you won't be able to prove it, let's look at it in a | > | > practical manner. Everything in the universe is both | > describable and | > | > discoverable. Therefore, speaking about D&D generally | > does not add any | > | > clarity to the definition. On the other hand, if you're speaking | > | > specifically about discovery services like UDDI and | > | > description services | > | > like WSDL, then that too is wrong, as I know of several | > web services | > | > already in production that use neither WSDL nor anything | > like UDDI. | > | > | > | > --steve | > | > | > | > > -----Original Message----- | > | > > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com] | > | > > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:57 PM | > | > > To: Vinoski, Stephen | > | > > Subject: RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."] | > | > > | > | > > | > | > > 100% of all Web resources, including Web Services CAN be | > | > > described and | > | > > discovered. The differentiating factor is HOW. Every Web | > | > > service CAN be | > | > > discovered regardless of whether or not the Web | > service explicitly | > | > > supports a specific discovery mechanism. Every Web | > service CAN be | > | > > decribed regardless of whether or not the Web service | > | > > explicity supports a | > | > > specific description mechanism. You are right in that | > | > decription and | > | > > discovery alone do not distinguish Web services from other | > | > > types of web | > | > > resources, but that does not mean that the properties of | > | > > discoverability | > | > > and description are not part of the formal definition of a | > | > > Web service. | > | > > | > | > > - 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 | > | > > | > | > > To: James M Snell/Fresno/IBM@IBMUS, "Joseph Hui" | > | > > <jhui@digisle.net> | > | > > cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> | > | > > Subject: 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 Sunday, 3 March 2002 12:49:33 UTC