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

MessageWhy, that's simple.  Anything is on the web if it has a URI that
responds to an HTTP GET.  POST requests are not *on the web* per se.  Tis
true.  If you traverse a link to a form, then post the form, the result
isn't "on the web".  SOAP services using just POST aren't "on the web".
That's what TAG issue #7 was ALL about.

But "on the web" isn't an important issue and is a red herring.  As Martin
points out, "on the web" probably ought to be dropped from any such
definition.

Cheers,
Dave
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Martin Chapman
  Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:37 AM
  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?
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
    Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:25 PM
    To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
    Subject: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope
o fWS A for the document




    In an earlier mail Mike suggested:
    "A Web service is an interface to an executable software agent that is
designed to be used by another software agent. A Web service is identified
by a URI, and has a definition in a language sufficient to describe the
interface to developers of client agents. A software agent interacts with a
Web service in the manner prescribed by the formal definition, using
standard protocols."

    Using this defintion, CORBA objects are web services! They can have URIs
(added about three years ago), they are defined using IDL which is
sufficient to for developing client agents and they interact using standard
protocols (iiop).

    I am not for one minute suggesting that CORBA objecst should be in the
set, but without a better definition they will be and i'm not sure what use
that is.

    Anyone remember business objects? Nice marketing term but no one could
provide a techical defnition whereby if one were given something you can
tell whether it was one or not. I'd hate to see web services go down this
route.

    Martin.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
      Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:03 AM
      To: Colleen Evans
      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 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.