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

At 07:39 AM 4/21/2003, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>I'm sorry -- my loose phrasing here caused a fairly lengthy and, to me 
>confusing, off-line discussion.  Perhops I meant "standard Web 
>protocols"?  I had in mind things like HTTP, XML, SOAP and so on.  I am 
>not an expert in CORBA but I personally do not consider it a standard Web 
>protocol -- probably because I believe that a lot of security people have 
>a considerable problem with allowing it to go through firewalls, and that 
>doesn't sound like the Web to me.

Only if you don't smuggle it over port 80. Then it cuts through firewalls 
like a hot knife through butter, just like everything else smuggled in over 
port 80.

Someone will have to come up with a better definition to exclude it.

Just to make things a bit more complicated, if one were to define a 
(standard) way to map and carry a GIOP message inside a SOAP envelope, what 
would that make it?

jeff

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:37 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?
>-----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.

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 15:58:57 UTC