- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:26:57 -0700
- To: "'Mario Jeckle'" <mario@jeckle.de>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
- Cc: "'George Blanck'" <gsblanck@nyc.rr.com>, <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
huh? There's at least one big Web services company that doesn't believe that. And this point raises perhaps the uselessness of this discussion. We do not have agreement on what is REQUIRED for something to be a Web service. What are the constraints? All we have so far is that it's gotta have a URI. If it's not SOAP, not WSDL, not even XML, then there really isn't much else there there. Great, a URI. But what next? Our architecture won't provide anything that is of use to developers, as the URI isn't nearly sufficient to do something with. At least with the Web, we could say things around REST and how to interact. But putting a whole bunch of "it could do this, and it might be described using that, ..." doesn't really do any good. > I'm not clear if the wording "Services" is appropriate here > for the WSDL > including layer. Doesn't this imply that there is no service without > WSDL which is certainly untrue. Until we come up with different names for different aspects/combinations of Web services specs, IMO this discussion will continue to be trout bait. Cheers, Dave
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 01:24:40 UTC