- From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:59:29 -0800
- To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Hi, Actually we are going thru the Form-Norm-Storm-Perform stages of group theory. Hopefully we would get out of the storm mode soon and stay in the perform mode for the rest of the time ! Also the discussions around the definition are healthy to get to a common shared understanding. cheers | -----Original Message----- | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On | Behalf Of Sandeep Kumar | Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:14 AM | To: Heather Kreger; www-ws-arch@w3.org; Krishna Sankar | Subject: RE: Web Services Definition and XML | | Hi Guys, | | Can we agree that this WS Defintion *could* be revised after we have made | some | progress on other fronts? If so, let us move with this WS defintion, and | revisit it later. | | However, if we cannot make changes, given that the defintion would be | visible to | people outside this committee, and they may make progress, then we should | *violently* :) | argue and nail it down for good. | | | Regards, | Sandeep | | -----Original Message----- | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On | Behalf Of Heather Kreger | Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:03 AM | To: www-ws-arch@w3.org; Krishna Sankar | Subject: RE: Web Services Definition and XML | | | I agree with Krishna on this. Lets define Web Services broadly here. We | don't need the word XML all through it. If we want to | qualify "standards based description" to "standards based XML | description" | I can live with that. | | I think that the architecture we define will have XML all over it as we | identify technologies to fill the various roles and aspects we define. | I don't want to say right now that if the bits on the wire aren't XML or | weren't derived from XML you don't get to be a web service. What and | how things go on the wire is part of the architecture... not the | definition. | | IMO, I think if we restrict it to XML on the wire we throw out LOTS of | very | interesting real world, business use cases... creating divergence as | vendors go elsewhere for technology and architecture. We would be | throwing | out our 'existing art' as well with SOAP attachments and MIME. Those | attachments | aren't XML. We would be drastically restricting the applicability of Web | services to the enterprise integration problem if we restrict the wire to | XML. WSDL does not restrict the wire to XML. The industry is looking for | guidance on Web Services Architecture, lets not dismiss a bunch of them | right off the bat. | | Small suggestion for progress...after we get through the defining the | requirements on Chris' schedule, we will get to define the architecture... | I think this is when we should nail this down. | | Heather | | "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>@w3.org on 03/04/2002 10:50:41 PM | | Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org | | | To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> | cc: | Subject: RE: Web Services Definition and XML | | | | Dave, | | | The charter seems extremely clear that web services must be based upon | XML. | <KS> | I reread the charter. To me the charter does not imply either that our | *definition* of web services must be based on XML not XML as the *sole* | implementation of web services. | | It only says that the set of technologies *identified* by this WG should | be | based on XML. It also says that the WG does not have to design the | technologies. As an extreme case, another WG or a later version can | identify | a very different stack of technologies, based on our definitions. | | In this sense, define as broadly as required and identify a set of XML | technologies to implement that definition, is our marching order. So if | we | define web services as "using standard interfaces and using internet | protocols" we are covered. We need to identify WSDL and SOAP as the | description and message technologies. | | BTW, the frequency of the word XML is irrelevant here. | </KS> | | cheers | | | -----Original Message----- | | From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On | | Behalf Of David Orchard | | Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:23 PM | | To: www-ws-arch@w3.org | | Subject: Web Services Definition and XML | | | | | | I wanted to discuss a specific aspect of Web Services definition on a | | separate thread, particularly the use of XML. | | | | If one takes a look at the charter of the Web Services Architecture | group | | [1], the word XML is the 4th word in the text. The first 7 sentences | | mention XML 7 times. I'm counting as one the XML, XML | | Namespaces, and XML | | Schema fragment. | | | | Further, the 2nd goal is "The set of technologies identified | | must be based | | on XML. ". | | The 6th bulleted goal is "The framework proposed must support the kind | of | | extensibility actually seen on the Web: disparity of document formats | and | | protocols used to communicate, mixing of XML vocabularies using XML | | namespaces, development of solutions in a distributed | | environment without a | | central authority, etc. "... | | | | The charter seems extremely clear that web services must be | | based upon XML. | | | | Now I'm a person that leans towards sometimes re-interpreting | | charters, but | | I draw the line in the sand on this one. I believe that the Web | Services | | definition MUST make explicit reference to XML. Perhaps the | | actual bits on | | the wire don't have to be XML - like using SSL or GZIP - but the | | basis for | | the inputs and outputs of the service sure have to be XML or a well | | understood transformation. I also include a packaging of XML | | into something | | like MIME or DIME as being XML based. | | | | Like I argued for URIs, I will also argue for XML in our | | definition. This | | is a show-stopper. | | | | Cheers, | | Dave | | [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-arch-charter | | | | | | |
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 13:00:00 UTC