Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Is the WS- vision achievable?

[Keith Harrison-Broninski]

WADR, you cannot implement distributed workflow, clinical decision support or any other such human-oriented, collaborative, dynamic activities via an architectural style such as REST - its underlying metaphor (what database folks would call CRUD, Create Read Update Delete) is information-based.  To support such work activities you need an architectural style that is process-based.  Much as I like the elegance of REST, and appreciate its power, even doing CRUD on commands is not enough to provide the semantics required. This is what I meant in an earlier post about the need for a new protocol layer above both comms and applications, a "process protocol layer".  Such a protocol layer will look very different from HTTP/SOAP/etc.   It will even look different from the current attempts at such a layer (BPEL + WS-CDL), since these languages provide no place for human involvement.  IMO, a process layer must be structured around independent process participants (what I would call Roles, each with a private context that includes constructs of various kinds) for activity implementation and inter-Role communication via asynchronous multi-channel "Interactions". Unfortunately, incumbent vendors will struggle to support this by the usual route of re-purposing their existing offerings - which is probably why there is no push from standards bodies to define such a layer.  We need not only a new way of thinking but also new tools - not the same old stuff in a new box. -- All the best Keith http://keith.harrison-broninski.info David Forslund wrote: I would find it very difficult to talk to people if I could only use nouns. Restricting communications to nouns seems incredibly restrictive. I know the Web has been very successful with a restricted set of "verbs", but the web isn't very natural for doing distributed workflow, clinical decision support, etc. I would like to see a simple REST "interface" for Workflow with the same functionality that is in the existing Internet standards for this service, for example. Something that I could send someone (or they could get from a standards body) and know exactly what the system behavior on the other end is. Behavior doesn't involve nouns. It involves verbs and can involve state. If I can't have a machine readable specification of the system behavior of some kind, I don't think interoperability is really achievable. SPONSORED LINKS Service-oriented architecture Computer monitoring software Computer and internet software Free computer monitoring software YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.