- From: Brian Connell <brian@westglobal.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:38:18 +0100
- To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
+1 Needs no footnotes or explanations, is unambiguous and clear, and means what we want it to say. Brian > Why not replace "machine-to-machine" with "application-to- application"? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com> > To: "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>; "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>; > <www-ws-arch@w3.org> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:28 PM > Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS > > > > > > The point is valid, but I think that just about everybody agrees that > > the basic intention behind "designed to support machine-to- machine ..." > > is extremely important. That's essentially what separates Web services > > from ugly things like screen scraping Web sites. > > > > I personally do not think that the current phrasing implies that it > > can't be used on the same machine -- just that the common usage pattern > > is different machines. Recall, however, that I essentially brought up > > the same point objecting to introducing the word "remote" into the > > definition. > > > > I think that removing "machine-to-machine" altogether would be a very > > bad idea, but some sort of recognition somewhere that interactions on > > the same machine are "OK" would be useful. I don't think that anybody > > would object to a specific Web service implementation that, for some > > good reason, was not actually exposed to other machines. The potential > > would exist, of course, to expose it -- one can just turn that off if > > appropriate. > > > > Doesn't this sort of come under the security umbrella? That is, > > controlling the scope to which the service is exposed, with one extreme > > being no network exposure whatsoever? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Connell [mailto:brian@westglobal.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:43 AM > > To: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I have an issue I would like to raise with the phrase > > 'machine-to-machine'. > > > > > A Web service is a software system, designed to support > > > machine-to-machine interaction over a network, > > > > This implies that a Web service is not designed to be used if the > > software systems are interacting on the same machine (even using the > > same processor). > > > > Can I suggest that we remove the 'machine-to-machine' term altogether, > > or that we further qualify the word 'interaction' in a way that includes > > software systems on the same 'machine'. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Brian Connell > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Brian Connell, CTO, WestGlobal http://www.westglobal.com
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 18:38:45 UTC