- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:49:03 -0800
- To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Quick question: Given that WSDL can describe a URI and a GET binding, if a browser sends "out" a GET URI, is it a Web service? Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Scott Vorthmann > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:23 PM > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: service / agent terminology > > > > > 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 Sunday, 23 February 2003 20:53:49 UTC