On Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at 07:56PM, "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One of my favourite ones is oBIX (Open Building information exchange) Funny, oBIX shows some desire to hop on the REST bandwagon (but misses it): http://jalgermissen.com/2005/11/blog/2006/10/20/rest-rpc-brain-damage/ Thanks for the others, I will have a look, seriously. Jan >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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
