RE: Is This a Web Service?

Roger,

To clarify that point, I did not intend to restrict the definition to technologies conformant to W3C specifications and do not think we should.
 
Thanks,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 8:57 PM
To: Newcomer, Eric; Ugo Corda; Www-Ws-Arch@W3. Org
Subject: RE: Is This a Web Service?


Well, OK -- but I'm uncomfortable with my inference (it may not be what you intended) that it's only a Web service if it is conformant to some W3C specification.  The reason for this is that it is very clear to me that ebXML, in which the interface definitions are not WSDL, are in fact Web services.  They satisfy every reasonable criterion I can think of -- they have formal descriptions, they are based on XML, they are app-to-app, etc, etc.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:33 PM
To: Ugo Corda; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Www-Ws-Arch@W3. Org
Subject: RE: Is This a Web Service?


Agreed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:54 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Www-Ws-Arch@W3. Org
Subject: RE: Is This a Web Service?


>I still would like to get some sense of whether we can agree about the HTTP GET of an image.

The XML Protocol WG has been discussing the idea of considering binary attachments as a logical part of a SOAP message infoset. If this concept is taken further forward in that WG, it might very well happen that the HTTP GET of the binary image you are talking about will just be correct SOAP 1.2 (after applying the Web Method Feature). At that point there would be no doubt about it being a Web service.
 
Ugo