[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Rick,
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 07:02, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> 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.
That's an interesting distinction which helps me understand why I feel
uneasy with the W3C definition of Web services: it's like redefining
"Web page" to be a page which has a URI and is described in XML!
Also, it's missing your point by specifying that a Web service must be
described as XML and not that this description should be published.
In other words, a Web resource described as XML in a document which
stays on my laptop's hard disk meets the W3C definition while a Web
resource which description would be published as WikiML documentation,
Relax NG schema using the compact syntax and RDF/N3 does not.
If the purpose of the definition was to define Web resources which are
"in" the web, it should IMO better insist on the publication than on the
syntax of the description.
Eric
--
See you in Baltimore.
http://www.xmlconference.org/xmlusa/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
