Re: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the definitio n of Web service"

I'd have to chime in with the following:

        +10 for interoperability 
and 
        +5 WSDL is necessary but other protocols (e.g. not necessarily 
SOAP) can 
                be used where supported

For purposes of defining WSA, I think that the answer has to be +10, after 
all we are in the 
Web Services Activity and there are two sister WG's focused on those 
technologies.  One would
hope that WS_Choreography will be building off of WSDL and SOAP and not 
something
else.

I think that the fact that WSDL allows you to describe bindings that are 
not SOAP-based is an
added bonus. It just makes the technology that much more compelling.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 06/01/2003 12:03:45 PM:

> 
> 
> 
> 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 17:38:10 UTC