RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope o f WS A for the document

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:31 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" 
> and the scope
> of WS A for the document
> 
> 
>
> 
> What does MUST mean?

It means that for a Web service to be considered in-scope for the WSA, it
must be defined by a machine-processable WS description language (not
necessarily WSDL, but something with at least WSDL's power).  In other
words, the scenario we've discussed where the client programmer calls up the
service programmer and says "hey, what do you want the SOAP message to look
like?" is not one that we have to account for in the WSA.

> All of a sudden one of my 
> disks fails and the document is lost forever. No definition until I get 
> the time to recreate it which considering the effect of the crash may be 
> a week or two from now. Do I need to broadcast a message to the world 
> indicating that my Web service is no longer "a Web service"? 

We talked about that scenario ... it's sortof like "Is a COBOL program for
which we've lost the source code still a COBOL program?"  First, I guess
we're not saying that it's no longer a "Web service", simply that this is
not a case that the WS Architecture attempts to say anything about.  Second,
it means that new clients can't be reliably defined, and additional features
that layer on top of the formal description (such as Choreography, perhaps)
are undefined.

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 20:19:30 UTC