[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML
Steve, Thanks for your consideration. Your message implies that you are part of the W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group, and I appreciate your concern in getting comments from an outsider. You confirm my assessment that this loose definition is the best that could be worked out in consensus by a committee. I'll answer your specific points in line. At 01:50 AM 9/12/02 -0400, Vinoski, Stephen wrote: >Mike, the W3C definition is intentionally loose. Getting that particular >definition agreed by (most of) the W3C Web Services Architecture Working >Group agreed took quite a long time. Some would like to make it even more >general than it already is. > >Your criticism that some services are available only via IP address and >port and not via a URL is odd. Are you saying that no protocol whatsoever >is used to access such services? Giving you the benefit of the doubt and >assuming not, then you can write a URL in the following form to access any >such service: protocol://address:port/. Forgive me for being a bit too general in this statement. Sure, you need a protocol and yes, anyone can write a URL to define a protocol, address, and port. But, that's not the point of the debate as I understand it. Let me give you a more concrete example. For example I can direct all of my procurement/payment related messages to the same address:port over secure http. There are different business applications that handle order acknowledgement and invoices, yet the messages (in a SOAP based ebXML envelope) for both go to the same address and port. The argument goes that for these two applications to be fully specific as web services, they have to have unique URLs. Therefore, they don't qualify as web services. In this model the message handling system described the URL is the web service. On the other hand, the other model says that because the business applications expose their interfaces through the messaging service, and that all of the other necessary details are defined in their ebXML CPA, that they qualify as web services. That model leaves the messaging service in a somewhat ambiguous status. Is it a service, too, or is it just plumbing? My point is that the W3C definition seems to accommodate both models. I think that borders on making it too general to be of much practical use. >If you have services accessible via Kermit running over telnet -- your >example, not mine -- why would they not be valid web services? Are you >implying that Web Services are accessible only via SOAP over HTTP? No, I am carrying the open, unspecific nature of the definition to an absurd extreme. I think you would be laughed at if you told the average IT professional on the street that Kermit running over telnet qualified as a web service. >UDDI is not necessary for Web Services. UDDI is just one of many >mechanisms for discovery. A sender merely needs a way to discover how to >contact the receiver. It could do this for example by prompting for a URI >if it had to -- no UDDI needed. Fine by me. But you have to acknowledge that there is a popular viewpoint that defines web services as a combination of at least XML, SOAP, and UDDI. Some people also include WSDL as a necessary part of the mix. Yes, I know, you are trying to define an architecture and not talk in terms of specific implementation technologies. >I'm a firm believer that criticism should always be accompanied by >proposals for improvement. Please share with us your definition of web >services, and explain why your definition is better than what the W3C is >currently using. No offense intended, but my definition of web services is that it is primarily a marketing concept and not an architecture. As such it can be pretty much whatever serves the interests of someone trying to sell technology. That said, I do have respect for people trying to do serious architecture using various IP based protocols and XML based languages for messaging. I just think that the term "web services" has become so polluted that its going to be even harder to make sense of than client-server was in the 80s. My preference would be to do away with the term for any serious work, but of course I don't expect that to happen. Your W3C group does have a serious challenge in trying to define an architecture for what started out as a rather nebulous concept, and in trying to define it in true architectural terms without talking about specific implementation technologies. As such, I appreciate the difficulty in coming up with a good, consensus definition. I would put on my thinking cap and try to come up with something better, but I really don't have much interest in this concept at the very high, general level at which you seem to be working. I do have one specific suggestion though. The blurb about "capable of being defined, described, and discovered by XML artifacts" could really use some work. XML artifacts don't discover anything. People and applications working on their behalf, perhaps *using* XML artifacts, discover things. XML artifacts don't do anything, they just sit there or get moved around by something else. Perhaps what is really intended here is something along the lines of changing: "interfaces and binding are capable of being defined, described and discovered by XML artifacts" to "interfaces and binding are defined and described by XML documents" This, I think, is really all that needs to be said. If you water it down with "capable of", then you're really not saying much of anything. You could get stricter and say something like: "interfaces and binding are defined and described by documents that are compliant with XML based standard languages" That implies that the interfaces and bindings are described by something like WSDL (or ebXML CPA), but without naming the specific technology. But, I expect that there will be folks who object to that stringent a definition. In either case, you don't really have to say anything about the application's interfaces and bindings *being* discovered. The capability to be discovered is implied by the application's interfaces and bindings being described by a standard XML based language. Thanks for your interest - I hope this helps. Mike >--steve > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael C. Rawlins [mailto:mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:21 AM > > To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org > > Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML > > > > > > Thank you very much, but I wouldn't fault Gartner. This > > definition has all > > the marks of being a fairly low value, greatest common denominator > > consensus definition that was the best that competing interests could > > hammer out in committee. What's wrong with it? Here goes: > > > > It is so general as to cover almost anything using XML on the > > internet in > > almost any fashion. There has been a debate in the community > > about whether > > or not "web services" really has anything to do with the web, > > since some > > web service resources are only accessible via IP address and > > port number > > and not via a URL, URLs being the hyperlinked essence of the current > > Web. W3C neatly punted on this issue by saying that the > > application can be > > identified by a URI, which of course can be a URL which > > points to something > > or a URN which is only a name. > > > > How about "capable of being defined, described, and discovered by XML > > artifacts" - I can describe nearly anything using an > > appropriate XML based > > language. Being "discovered" by an XML artifact is somewhat of a > > nonsequiter. How does an instance document do discovery? > > Can a schema or > > stylesheet do discovery? > > > > Let's look at "internet-based" protocols. Does Kermit run > > over a telnet > > session classify as an internet based protocol? > > > > The commonly held definition promoted in the trade press equates Web > > Services with XML, SOAP, and UDDI. That's still pretty > > fuzzy, but more > > specific than this blurb that covers only one of the three. > > > > Sorry, but I don't find even the W3C very enlightening in > > this area. I'm > > usually not a big defender of Gartner, but don't beat up on > > them for this! > > > > (Isn't it nice to know that Mike can rag on about something > > other than ebXML?) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mike > > > > At 12:35 PM 9/10/02 -0700, Peter Kacandes wrote: > > >Its funny that Gartner likes to talk about standards, but is > > clueless when it > > >comes to the standard definition of a web service: > > > > > > > > > | Definition: A Web service is a software application > > identified by a URI, > > > | whose interfaces and binding are capable of being > > defined, described and > > > | discovered by XML artifacts and supports direct > > interactions with other > > > | software applications using XML based messages via internet-based > > > | protocols > > > | > > > | http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20020429#N100CB > > > > > >regards > > > > > >pk > > > > > > > > > >Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:20:00 -0500 > > > >From: Brian Repko <brian_repko@hotmail.com> > > > >Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML > > > >X-Originating-IP: [198.212.99.114] > > > >To: steve.capell@redwahoo.com, ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org > > > >MIME-version: 1.0 > > > >List-Owner: <mailto:ebxml-dev-help@lists.ebxml.org> > > > >List-Post: <mailto:ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org> > > > >List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>, > > ><mailto:ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=subscribe> > > > >List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>, > > ><mailto:ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=unsubscribe> > > > >List-Archive: <http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/> > > > >List-Help: <http://lists.ebxml.org/elists/admin.shtml>, > > ><mailto:ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=help> > > > >List-Id: <ebxml-dev.lists.ebxml.org> > > > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2002 16:20:01.0406 (UTC) > > >FILETIME=[E9DC01E0:01C258E5] > > > > > > > >Steve, > > > > > > > >Thanks for the selected excerpts. However, in looking again > > > >through the material, there are lots of discussions on B2B > > > >scenarios for web services and again, ebXML does not come > > > >up. I did find a reference to ebMS but that was the only > > > >part of ebXML that came up. That reference is in a presentation > > > >(A7 for those that have it too!) by Jess Thompson and Wes Rishel > > > >that discusses standardization of semantics and never mentions > > > >Core Components (and yes, I realize that that is not *technically* > > > >a part of ebXML). It is in fact comparing RosettaNet PIPs > > > >against BPMI (ignoring external vs internal workflow) and never > > > >mentions BPSS. It discusses UDDI (with caution) but never > > > >mentions RegRep. > > > > > > > >For it's part it clearly supports ebMS...but it stops there > > > >and never mentions other parts of the framework when their > > > >direct counterparts and solution space is being addressed. > > > > > > > >It is also a bit upsetting that in a seminar with 29 presentations > > > >on application integration, that not one describes the ebXML > > > >framework - OSI comparison or not - Gartner should at > > least describe > > > >the business problems that ebXML was designed to solve. Perhaps > > > >that is how it gets marketed. > > > > > > > >My .02 USD > > > > > > > >Brian > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > > > >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. > > > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > >manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > > >Peter Kacandes > > > > > >Sr. Product Manager, Java XML APIs phone number: 408 > > 276 7139, X17139 > > >Java Software Products email: > > peter.kacandes@sun.com > > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > >The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. > > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > >manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting > > www.rawlinsecconsulting.com > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC