- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:35:01 -0500
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
I personally thought that we were making more progress on this in the following two messages. The first lists some things that probably are and are not Web services, the second has some proto-definitions that I think have a lot of merit. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0118.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0127.html I do indeed see the dilemma Mike discusses in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0187.html. However, I don't see any problem with defining the term Web services itself in a way that is fairly general and can accommodate development of the technology and then specializing to a more restricted domain for the reference architecture. I do not want to make inclusion of ebXML a requirement, but I think it is likely to come along naturally. If it doesn't that's fine with me, but I also do not want to go into contortions in order to exclude it. -----Original Message----- From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 9:59 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the call toda y > -----Original Message----- > From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:46 AM > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: Some proposed definitions of "web service" based on the > call toda y > > Could someone summarize the current proposal for the > definition? I've kind of lost track of where it stands now. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0182.html That seems like a "friendly amendment" to what I started this particular thread with. I personally would also find something like your wording " WSDL [is] a specialized form of an XML Schema typically used for the description, but I think it's also fair to say that other schema formats could also do the job (given XML's extensibility, flexibility, and transformability)" acceptable.
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 10:35:27 UTC