Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Paul Prescod" <email@example.com>
> I thought that the point about Web Services(TM) was that they were
> interfaces to services intended to be processed by machines rather than
> presented to human beings.
> I would posit that less than 1 in 20
> "self-declared Web Services" uses any formal discovery mechanism and
> less than half have a service discovery.
To explain my POV, let me make a distinction between a resource being
"on" the Web or "in" the Web. If it is merely "on" the Web, it does not have any links
pointing to it. If a resource is "in" the Web, it has links from other resources to it.
So Google is great because it puts a lot of resources that are "on" the Web "in"to the
Web: a discovery or advertising service.
A service that has no means of discovery (i.e. a link) or advertising is "on" the Web but not
"in" the Web, under those terms. It just happens to use a set of protocols but it
is not part of a web. So it should not be called a web service, just an unlinked-to resource.
Of course, I understand that many people want to define the WWW as a namespace of
URIs rather than as a web of nodes and arcs: a resource without any links is a fly
waiting to be caught in the Web.