Re: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope o fWS A for the document

WSA-compliant is way too strong a term IMO. Why can't we just call it a 
Web Service?

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 04/17/2003 12:20:55 PM:

> WSA-Compliant seems a bit overloaded for what we're defining.   How 
about WSA-Defined or WSA-Specified? 
> Colleen 
> "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" wrote: 
>  I cannot attend the telecon, but I think I have made it clear that I 
feel strongly about 
> preserving the early bound scenarios that may not involve a formal XML 
definition of the 
> interface.Beyond that, my opinions about your questions are:- 
WSA-Compliant seems better because 
> ebXML certainly uses XML but is presumably not going to be 
WSA-Compliant.- I think that an actual 
> realization of a machine processable interface description should be 
optional.- I think the WS is 
> the agent and it has an interface, but I'm not too excited about this 
distinction.  I trust the 
> people who are more precise about these things to keep this stuff 
straight. 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:14 AM 
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope 
o f WS A for the document 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:43 AM 
> To: Champion, Mike 
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope 
o f WS A for the document 
> 
> 
> I for one had the same thought, a Web service *has an* interface, it is 
> not an "is a" relationship in my book. 
> It sounds to me like this is another issue we should discuss today in 
trying to filet the "what is
> a Web service" trout.  So, the major points of discussion about the 
proposed definition from the 
> editors seem to be:- What should we call a WSA-ish "Web service"?  "XML 
WS?"  "WSA-compliant WS?" 
> other?- How formal / machine processable must a WSA-ish WS description 
be? - Is a WS an interface 
> to some service, or does the WS have an XML interface?It would be good 
if people who feel strongly
> about any of these issues were to get their arguments on the virtual 
table  before the telcon.