W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3

From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 12:28:10 -0700
Message-ID: <3EBAAFCA.7070301@tibco.com>
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org

You could argue that CORBA + IIOP was trying to do very much what web 
services now do - provide distributed services in a vendor-neutral and 
interoperable framework.

IMO what distinguishes what we usually think of as web services from 
other distributed services is that they have a non-opaque standard 
message format and a more common standardized protocol. Which makes 
interoperability much easier to accomplish.

Whether this is an essential distinction can be debated.


Ugo Corda wrote:
>>This possibly wouldn't even exclude something like CORBA, at least in 
>>its modern incarnation that supports IIOP.
> But this is exactly what I think we should avoid, i.e. provide a definition of Web services such that pretty much anything satisfies the definition (making the term itself meaningless - or at least uninteresting - as a consequence).
> Ugo 
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 15:28:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:51 UTC