Re: WS, SOA, and the Web

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:38:20AM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> Yes, I agree, I'm just saying I don't think we're at the constraints stage yet with regard to WSA, we are still defining relationships. 

Ok, I guess we disagree after all.

If you are to go beyond saying simple things like "This component
relates to this other component", you are defining constraints.  For
example, if you said, "This component relates to this other component
in that one is a client and the other is a server" then you are
talking about a constraint in that relationship.

Can you provide an example of a relationship which is not similarly
constraining?

> I would only add as a kind of footnote that WSA seems much broader than the Web architecture, since it extends beyond the Web.  This seems more likely to be the bone of contention to me than the core concepts, relationships, and views.

The WSA is "broad" in the sense of being relatively unconstrained.
That's a bug, not a feature.  It is only by constraining relationships
between elements that useful properties emerge.  The null style[1] is
even broader than WSA, but people don't use it since it is, by
definition, good for nothing.

The Web is broad in that it defines a universal space for *all*
information, be it for human or machine consumption.

May I suggest followups to either www-ws or www-talk?  Thanks.

 [1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_1

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis

Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 12:19:52 UTC