[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 15:44, Mike Champion wrote:
> IMHO, the most of
> the disputes are about the details of technology and dogma, and "web
> service" can be defined in a way that allows one to be implemented
> with REST/XML, SOAP/WSDL, RDF/ontologies, and all sorts of interesting
> combinations thereof.
Yes, this is part of the issue. I tend to use the term "web service" as
something enough to include REST/XML (with or without formal XML
description) and this is a source of confusion when discussing with
people who assume that a Web service must be based upon SOAP/WSDL and
UDDI.
> > 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.
>
> Aha! I see the issue now ... That is MOST DEFINITELY not the intent of the
> W3C WSA definition.I think we meant "XML" as the data model / Infoset (the
> view enshrined in SOAP 1.2) [ducking the flames from Rich Salz and Tim Bray
> :-) ]
> and apparently people are reading the "XML" reference as insisting on XML
> 1.x syntax. Clearly the definition needs some wordsmithing!
Why not just say something such as:
"A Web service is a software system identified by a URI [RFC 2396],
whose public interfaces and bindings may be defined, described and
published using web standards."
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
