RE: Draft definition of WS

This is pedantic, but I would like to edit the phrase: 

'Other systems may interact with the Web service in a manner
prescribed by its description, ...'

Does it not logically follow then that other systems could interact
in a manner not prescribed by its description... Should this looseness
be part of the definition? I would narrow the meaning some:

'Other systems interact with the Web service in a manner prescribed
by its description, ...'

I am also unclear why we use the term 'Other systems'. If a WS consumer
is interacting with a WS provider, are they not part of the same 'system'.
Could we say instead 'A remote processor'? 

Thx.
MikeM


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
>Sent: July 24, 2003 09:58 PM
>To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS
>
>
>
>Your changes look good to me.  Thanks.
>
>At 05:46 PM 7/24/2003 -0500, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>>[Roger's suggested modifications:]
>>
>>There are many things that might reasonably be called "Web 
>services" in
>>the world at large.  However, for the purpose of this 
>architecture, and
>>without prejudice toward other definitions, we will use the following
>>definition:
>>
>>A Web service is a software system designed to support
>>machine-to-machine interaction over a network.  It is identified by a
>>URI and has public interfaces described in a 
>machine-processable format
>>(WSDL). Other systems may interact with the Web service in a manner
>>prescribed by its description, typically using XML-based messages
>>conveyed using HTTP, SOAP and other Web-related standards.
>
>
>-- 
>David Booth
>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>
>

Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 10:57:56 UTC