[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> If a resource does not have any discovery or metadata support
> it is just a resource and does not need any special term.
It was wrong to hijack a common term.
* http://netalaska.com/ "NetAlaska Web Services"
* http://www.getenhanced.com/ "Enhanced Web Services, your source for
website design, development and hosting."
* http://www.iaea.or.at/inis/ws/ "INIS Web Services -- a growing
database of annotated links to Web sites on the Internet that are
related to..."
*
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22web+services%22+department&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1
"The Web Services department maintains,
supports, and promotes the Butler web presence for the college."
"The mission of Bentley's Web Services department
is to develop and manage the college's internal and external web sites."
"JPL Expands Web Services Department Additions to staff feature business
and technical experts. "
"Our Web Services department provides numerous hosting
plans, along with the option of including" ...
> A couple of days ago I commented that not every web service
> is a (W3C) Web Service. But I think to say that every URL is
> a web services gets rid of a useful new term, and just means
> we would need to think of a new one. (Probably an acronym
> begining with X or W, bless each and every one of us.)
That is what Eric proposed in the first message. It makes sense to me
that if you want a new term, you invent a new term. You don't hijack an
existing one. Microsoft uses the term XML Web Service (XWS) and I think
that that is probably a good idea if the definition is going to be
predicated on XML anyhow (which is itself a poor idea, but whatever...).
> Terms evolve, and I don't recall "web services" has ever had
> a common meaning before. If anyone used "a web service"
> before, they are being overly germanic in any case, and would
> be well-advised to say "a service on the web" IMHO, just
> to prevent the spread of ugly lengthy noun phrases.
Blame the victim.
Paul Prescod
|
