On 12/12/06, Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jan: > Where are all the standardized APIs???? > > Steve: > >You mean like the industry vertical ones? There are quite a few out > >there these days. > > Likely that I missed these; I had no idea they existed. Can you point me to > two or three? Sure OTA (Open Travel Alliance) have done a lot of work around the XML Schemas and messages and WSDLs in the travel space (http://www.opentravel.org/advisoryforum/pdf/2006AF_Speakers/OTA_Architecture_Review.pdf for a good overview of what they do, and the WSDL guide is here http://dbe.ita.es/viewcvs/dbe/doc/ita/ota/OTA2006A_PublicReview/OTA_ImplementationGuide_WSDL_20060410.pdf?rev=HEAD)
One of my favourite ones is oBIX (Open Building information exchange) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=obix which I just like because its so niche and nicely shows how people are just getting on with using WS. OAGi has a whole bunch (60 from this link alone http://www.oagi.org/downloads/oagiswsdl/oagiswsdl80.htm) that cover lots of back-end applications pieces. Here is a research paper around it - http://www.si.umich.edu/misq-stds/proceedings/142_210-221.pdf which references a few more verticals including finance and healthcare. There are more but those are two heavy hitters, a niche and a reaseach paper which should be enough for now! This is of course different to the ones who are defining vertical schemas (which again is more WS-* than REST, but there is no reason REST shouldn't use the exchange Schemas). > > That would indeed shift the balance a bit. N.B. I don't dislike REST, I just don't see the point of going over this ground again. > > Jan > > > And part of the objective of WS-* isn't to create > >single interfaces across the world, its to enable businesses to > >collaborate around what they want which means establishing interfaces > >for just those interactions. > > > >If REST restricted its vision, as I've understood what you have > >claimed for it, to be more targetted and less grand and established > >that media types are between participants rather than global then it > >would sound more sensible to me. > > > > > >> > >> You need to do the same standardization effort for both styles and I > claim that defining a media type is a lot easier than defining an API. > > > >But that isn't a claim backed up by experience of distributed systems > >which has been successful via APIs but you are saying the new way > >_could_ be easier but don't have the proof point. You might be right, > >but I need data to back that opinion up. > > > >> > >> (The design space is smaller, less things to decide). > > > >An ontology for everything is not a small space. > > > >> > >> Really, I am totally not getting your point. Can you explain? > > > >You talk of standardized MIME types, a theoretical thing, being the > >"solution", I doubt that we will get to a complete ontology of MIME > >types that is standardised across the globe and therefore REST > >currently doesn't have a solution beyond partner to partner > >negotation, thus meaning that clients are bound to a specific server > >implementation as that has the MIME types it understands. > > > >WS-* is further along in the standardisation of industry verticals and > >this is liable to accelerate in the next 12 months. I'm just not > >seeing the business case for them re-doing the effort for REST. > > > > > > > >> > >> Jan > >> > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > >
