On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Joel Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, a proper definition of web service should also mention the usage of > web protocols such as HTTP and standards such as URIs. > > However, for the broad definition of web service, I think SOAP and WSDL > are not strictly required (e.g. RESTful services).
Evolving standards and protocols, yes. I would go so far as to say that mentioning HTTP, SOAP, and/or WSDL, in anything more than a well qualified example would be plain wrong. You might say that HTTP is currently the prevalent communication method used in RESTful web services, however its use in WS* web services is much less semantically relevant. Perhaps key to understanding what "web service" means is realising that web services have been around as long as the web itself, i.e. they didn't just pop into existence the moment OASIS started the first working group (read some RESTifarian propaganda ;) ). Only now we have significant effort invested in standardising them. -B -- In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. - Paul Dirac
