- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 21:36:55 -0400
- To: jones@research.att.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org
At 01:47 PM 10/7/2002 -0400, jones@research.att.com wrote: >There is no pure SOA without some service information being acquired >by the requestor. I totally agree. And the important part is the service information itself (e.g., WSDL) -- not the means by which it is acquired, nor the number of hypothetical parties through which it is passed on its way from the Service Provider to the Service Requester. >To identify a case where it involves human agency, >prior business arrangement and SMTP is only to locate a particular >point in the continuum. There are other real-world variants, even >more likely in my experience, in which the service provider explicitly >communicates URL's to the business partner at which WSDL and English >documents that further describe the service are to be found. The >requestor then gets these documents by using HTTP rather than SMTP as >in David's example. Actually, I would take this as an excellent illustration of my point. The concept of "discovering" or "searching for" the service is totally unnecessary in these scenarios. The only reason I can see for including a component in our architecture is if we need to describe what it DOES. For scenarios like you just described, or the FredCo/Widgets-R-Us scenario[1] that I described, I see no benefit (and some harm!) in us trying to describe what a hypothetical third party might be or do. In fact, we shouldn't even care whether a third party exists! The only thing that matters is the service description itself. Let's not make the BASIC architecture more complex than necessary. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0072.html -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 21:35:30 UTC