RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the definition of Web service"

I think "WSDL" should be better defined for the purpose of this poll, particularly in the context of the [+1] choice.
 
Since WSDL allows many bindings, we could get into the situation where a WSDL binding to Java method calls (requester and provider within the same Java process - see Apache's WSIF example) would qualify as a Web service under option [+1], which is probably not what is meant here.

So "WSDL" could be better qualified here as W3C WSDL with support for at least one of the standard bindings (SOAP, HTTP, MIME).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:04 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the
> definitio n of Web service" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said (and Ugo +1'd)
> 
> > And, for the record, I am still very much opposed to any effort
> > to generalize "Web service" for purposes of this 
> architecture document 
> > that does not have SOAP and WSDL at its core. IMO, 
> interoperability is why
> > we are doing Web services in the first place, and you cannot achieve
> > interop if there are thirty one flavors of Web service 
> technology stacks.
> 
> 
> Since we're proposing text for section 1.5 of the document, 
> and we're doing
> triage on issues to see how close we are to consensus, let's 
> see where we
> stand on this one.  I'd appreciate hearing from everyone who 
> cares about
> this (and if you want to debate someone else's position, 
> please change the
> subject line).
> 
> Heres's what I would consider to be the range of plausible 
> opinions: (the
> ordering of some of the options is a bit arbitrary, but try 
> to get into the
> spirit of the thing here ...)
> 
> -10 Neither are necessary; if two machines can agree on how to
> provide/consume services over the Web, they are doing "Web services."
> 
> -5 Neither are necessary, but XML is. It's XML that provides 
> the secret
> sauce that allows machines to communicate in a 
> standards-based but loosely
> coupled way over the Web
> 
> 0  SOAP or WSDL is necessary, it depends on the details of 
> the application
> 
> +1 WSDL is necessary, but not SOAP
> 
> +2 SOAP is necessary, but not WSDL
> 
> +5 Both are necessary "conceptually" but not literally. 
> 
> +10 Both are necessary, at least as far as the scope of the 
> WSA document is
> concerned.
> 
> "Mu" [1] would also be an acceptable vote; that would 
> indicate your sense
> that this scale is meaningless, or orthogonal to your 
> conception of what is
> important.  I would imagine that Mark B. would be in the "mu" 
> position, but
> I could be wrong :-)
> 
> A few scenarios that might help:
> 
> Would something like photos.yahoo.com be a "web service"  if 
> they documented
> their URLs and POST formats well enough for programmers to 
> use the service?
> Such a service would allow one to use HTTP POST to put images 
> in a gallery
> and then, depending on the query parameters in the URI, get 
> them back in
> difference sizes, formats, orientations, etc.   If you think 
> this is a Web
> service, I think you would vote -10.
> 
> Would something like photos.yahoo.com that only worked with 
> SVG images and
> used XQuery (extended with operations to store data as well 
> as query it) be
> a "Web service?"  If so, would would probably vote -5
> 
> Would the "photos" service sketched out above be a Web 
> service if they ....
> 
> - Published either a SOAP or a WSDL interface description?  Vote 0
> - Published a WSDL description of how to access the service 
> (with or without
> SOAP)? Vote +1
> - Defined a SOAP interface and documented it with example 
> code? Vote +2
> - Published a DAML-S description (or some other formal 
> language description)
> of both the data formats and protocols needed to access the 
> service?  Vote
> +5
> - Defined a SOAP interface *and* published a WSDL description of the
> interface?  Vote +10
> 
> 
> [1]"mu means 'no thing'. Like 'quality' it points outside the 
> process of
> dualistic 
> discrimination. mu simply says, 'no class; not one, not zero, 
> not yes, not
> no'. 
> It states that the context of the question is such that a yes 
> or no answer
> is in 
> error and should not be given. 'Unask the question' is what it says." 
> - Robert M. Pirsig from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
> Maintenance. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553277472
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 1 June 2003 13:31:05 UTC