OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Redefining the meaning of common nouns

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Mike Champion wrote:

> Well, yeah.  OK.  But the damn term is a meme out there in memespace 
> and  the W3C,  Microsoft, and IBM couldn't exterminate it at this 
> point even  if they wanted to or had any motivation to work together 
> and try. After  all, the whole point of the "Web Services" 
> architecture WG being  chartered was to figure out what people really 
> meant by "web services"  in an architectural sense and to try to find 
> some order amidst the chaos.

Michael, there was a concrete suggestion made twice. In particular, if 
the Web Service definition is going to include a reliance on XML, then 
why not go along with Microsoft* and call them "XML Web Services?" We 
can go on and on about how the industry works and what power the W3C has 
but I know for sure that it has power over how it uses language.

  * http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx

> To beat the "hijack" metaphor into the ground (endangering good taste

> in the process!), a group of marketroids hijacked the plane, couldn't 
> agree where to fly it, so they appointed a committee of the passengers 
> to  decide ... retaining veto power over the decision.  "Let's go back 
> to  the original airport and start over" doesn't seem to be an option 
> that they will allow at this point .

We're talking about the term used in formal specifications to refer to a 
particular construct. Who said anything about going back to the airport 
to start again?

>  ... It can Recommend whatever it
> wants, but if the Recommendations fall on deaf ears (as so many do),
> then what?  And why would the vendors even contribute to the 
> development  of a Recommendation that essentially  said "ignore all 
> those billions of  dollars of hype and vision-ware,  let's start over 
> from scratch with this stuff." It's not going to happen.

I think you're having a conversation I'm not having. I'll leave you to 
it. ;)

> Sigh, if we want to get literal about it, XML is not really an
> "Extensible Markup Language", 

Non sequiter. Naming something misleadingly is totally different than 
overusing a pre-existing term. If XML had been named Standard 
Generalized Markup Language then you would have a better analogy.

> Does the term "web service" cover all these? 

I don't know, but the definition that was presented did not cover 
HTML/HTTP services.

  Paul Prescod


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS