RE: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice

+1 (in a big way)


abbie




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 4:34 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice
> 
> 
> 
> +1
>  --Katia
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:59 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:37 PM
> > To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice
> >
> >
> >
> > > > etc.  The point being that maybe Web services is bigger 
> than the 
> > > > Web, in the sense that the Web made certain 
> optimizations that Web
> > > > services can't make
> > > > because Web services is targetting a wider scope of 
> applications.
> 
> The more I think about this, the more I agree with it.  It's 
> liberating, in a way, to at least allow for the possibility 
> that (terminology aside!!!) Web services are a superset of 
> "the Web" rather than the subset of the Web that involves 
> machine-to-machine interaction.  [One could also argue that 
> everything with a URI is on "the Web", so any service that follows our
> (probable) recommendation to identify key components with a 
> URI would be on the Web...]
> 
> And for those who will question why the W3C is dealing with 
> "Web services" if they transcend the Web, I have two answers:
> 
> 1 - The W3C Advisory Committee and Membership appears to 
> strongly endorse it. 2 - XML also transcends the Web.
> 
> 
>