On 10/07/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 7/7/06, Radovan Janecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I know. But agreement on data semantics is the big problem. Operations > (if it is not the part of the agreement already) are piece of cake compared > to that. > > > Agreement on data semantics is a big problem, but operations are not a > piece of cake compared to them, in fact; I know because I've built > large systems where data is agreed upon, and where it isn't agreed > upon. There are huge advantages to agreeing on an interface even if > data isn't agreed upon (though I admit the value of those advantages > depend on the app). > > > > As for my blog example, you didn't tell me how easier it is to do the job > yet. And I don't want to assume they share data semantics. This assumption is > nice but not real. But we can assume they are RESTful. > > > That's difficult to quantify, of course. It depends a lot on the data > itself. As a low watermark though, we know; > > work(Web services) = work( solving interface problem) + work ( solving > data problem ) > work(Web) = work( solving data problem )
Do we? I certainly don't. You still have to define the operational interface, even though it is a document post rather than a defined interface document. If you don't define the operations available to consumers then THEY WON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM. > > and therefore; > > work(Web services) > work(Web) > > I'd have to think a lot harder about the integration complexity of a > proposed data solution problem, such as RDF. I expect it's partly a > function of the availability of other data using the same model, in > the same way that buying the first fax machine was a bit of a risky > value proposition. I would expect it was O(N) though, with the caveat > that "integration" for some services may, at any given point in time, > be meaningless; e.g. a stock quote client and a weather service, where > there's absolutely no overlap in vocabulary. > > But for the blogging case at least, RSS & HTML *can* be assumed, which > gives you O(N); all that a blog client needs to interact with a blog > server is an identifier for the server. http://jroller.com/page/dancres?entry=the_power_of_the_web sums it up in no small part for me, it probably isn't that simple. > > Mark. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
