RE: "Web service" or "web service"

So Sanjiva, if wsd had thought that Web service was right, and ws-arch
thought that Web Service was right, would ws-arch still have the authority?
:-)

Is the ws-arch authority only if it does the right thing ;-)

he he

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 5:51 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "Web service" or "web service"
>
>
>
> Yes yes yes please do override the WS-Desc decision .. we have
> given you guys the authority do so per the last telecon!!
>
> "Web Service" is wrong. "Web service" is right. Of course.
>
> ;-)
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 8:31 AM
> Subject: RE: "Web service" or "web service"
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 3:43 PM
> > > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Mark Baker; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: "Web service" or "web service"
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > It was decided on the call to go for "Web Service". From
> the IRC log:
> >
> >
> > The WSA WG did a straw poll on our telcon yesterday and
> there was a 2:1
> > majority for "Web service."  Although obviously no one
> wants to "lay down
> in
> > the road" on such a non-critical issue, two fairly strong
> reasons emerged
> in
> > the discussion:
> >
> > - In terms of grammar, "Web" should be capitalized because
> it is a proper
> > noun, i.e., it refers to the World Wide Web, and "service"
> is not.  (I
> guess
> > one could argue that "Web Service" is a compound proper
> noun, like United
> > States or whatever).
> >
> > - In sheer pragmatic terms, at least two member companies (rather
> > substantial ones, to say the least) noted that they had standardized
> > internally on "Web service" and that there was a LOT of
> documentation,
> > marketing material, etc. that would in principle have to be
> revised at
> > substantial cost to be consistent with a different convention.
> >
> > Very deep sigh :-)
>
>

Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 13:24:57 UTC