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

True.  But it's much more difficult to describe what it means for a
*protocol* to be on the Web in my experience.  I have my own view, but
it would take a a while to describe, and I don't think it's on-topic
for this list anyhow.

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 02:54:05PM -0400, michael.mahan@nokia.com wrote:
> An information object is 'on the web' if it has a URI. 
>  
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> Sent: April 18, 2003 01:37 PM
> To: 'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope o fWS A for the document
> 
> 
> define "on the web" ?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:29 PM
> To: Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope o fWS A for the document
> 
> 
> I think that interacting via standard protocols on the Web might be a bit better.  Would CORBA still be in the stew then?

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis

Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 20:42:49 UTC