- From: Scott Vorthmann <scottv@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:22:34 -0500
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
I'm somewhat concerned about the direction of today's discussion of terminology. I agree with David B that there's a lot of baggage around "service" as a provider. However, that baggage is not imposed by abstract WSDL... rather it accrues by the common usage of request-reply as the prevalent operation signature. I'd like to lose the baggage. WSDL got many things "right", in my view, and the inclusion of "out" and "out-in" operation signatures is one of them. This lets me define an entity that has a clear boundary of identifiable, typed communication endpoints... I'd like to call that entity a service, even if its only interaction with the outside world is periodic publishing of time and temp (on an appropriate transport). Providing a service need not imply reactive communication... services can be proactive as well. This means that "provider" need not imply "responder". HTTP tunnel-vision has made a similar discussion on the Description group somewhat long and animated, apparently. I think we have a great opportunity to define an architecture that extends beyond existing Web transport protocols to communation protocols in general. (Will I now be skewered by REST proponents?) I hope our charter does not preclude that. Scott -- Scott Vorthmann mailto:scottv@tibco.com Senior Architect mailto:scottv1@imcingular.com office: 919 969 6513 TIBCO Extensibility mobile: 919 593 2349 TIBCO Software, Inc. http://www.tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 17:23:07 UTC