W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2004

RE: non-outcry over eBay SOAP interace

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:20:32 -0800
To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "'Thompson, Bryan B.'" <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02a601c3f361$e8cbbf30$6501a8c0@beasys.com>

I must admit I'm somewhat disappointed in the decision that the wsdl wg took
wrt this issue.

I would have thought it would be normative and ship in the mainline spec.
But I guess an extension, even if it won't have any testing or conformance
work done on it, is better than nothing.

I strongly disagree that there isn't experience in the web architecture wrt
"safe" operations.  In fact, I'd argue that the web architecture is
completely dependent upon GET being "safe".  Because it's safe, it can be
the default method used to retrieve a representation given a URI.  So we
have the entire web to show as experience wrt safe operations.  People want
the same facilities that GET offers but in a more protocol neutral manner.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 4:08 PM
> To: Thompson, Bryan B.
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: non-outcry over eBay SOAP interace
> On Feb 14, 2004, at 6:29 PM, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:
> > Bijan,
> >
> > I'm glad to hear that this is being done, but I would think that
> > a Normative, rather than Informative, approach might be better
> > for interoperability across SOAP and native HTTP services.
> It's not informative, it's delayed :) I.e., it's not an informative
> part of a Recommendation, it's a note to try to get something
> down with
> a recommendation of future standardization.
> > Unless this is an acknowledging that getting it right is not so
> > easy and folks would rather be Informative than make a normative
> > mistake?
> Exactly. Plus an acknowleding that even with a 2 year extension, the
> WSDL working group just doesn't have the resources to deal with it.
> It's not like there is, to my knowledge, *any* existing practice for
> this sort of description in WSDL. There is a fair bit of work at the
> Semantic Web service level, especially for distinguishing "safe" (in
> some sense) from world altering processes, but this isn't tied at all
> to web architecture as would, in my mind, provide sufficient
> experience
> to ground standardizatin.
> So, a working group note should provide enough of a hook for the
> community to hang a hat on, and a basis for future standardization.
> WSDL 2.0 is strongly oriented toward extensibility. We've already
> shoved a fair bit into the core spec :) The group is trying to be
> careful not to include things that implementors just won't implement.
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2004 20:20:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:58 UTC