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

PLEASE, PLEASE drop the phrase from the discussion.  I said it -- I
didn't mean it!!!  I was just being sloppy.  I'm flogging myself with a
semantic noodle.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 12:01 AM
To: 'Martin Chapman'; 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


Why, 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.