

Re: what is discovery - One concrete proposal

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 21:24:19 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>

I'm okay with this.

I still think the "Discovery Role" is more suited to an EXTENDED 
architecture than the BASIC architecture (because it isn't relevant to the 
common scenarios that I described), but I've done about the best I can to 
explain why, so if others still see it differently, then I think it's more 
important that we just move on.

I also think DaveH did an excellent job of trying to accommodate various 
viewpoints here in this summary.  Thanks DaveH!

At 11:18 AM 10/9/2002 -0700, Dave Hollander wrote:

>To try to get temporary closure on the discovery,triangle,
>and cloud, let me try to state one position.
>1. Leave it in the spec dract as is or ammended with axioms
>    from below.
>2. Add an example where "discovery" is a trivial role because
>    there are two parties directly exchanging information that
>    is hardwired into the service.
>3. Label the node "Discovery Agencies"
>Discovery = exchange of the service description details necessary
>to make a conncection.
>Discovery Axioms:
>1) discovery need not rely upon formal documents.
>2) discovery occurs regardless of when the discovered
>     information is bound into the connection (early or late).
>3) discovery is discovery regardless if the provider or
>     requestor does the advertising.
>4) discovery is discovery even if the data discovered was
>     already known. All that needs to be true is the potential
>     that the data *may* be different or new.
>5) discovery is discovery even if there are only two parties,
>     requestor and provider.
>I believe that "discovery", as defined above, exists as a
>role in all of the scenarios that have been presented here.
>So that leads to the question: is "discovery", as defined above,
>relevent enough to be included in our base architecture?
>I believe discovery is relevent and should be in the
>base architecture for the following reasons:
>1. the distinction between hypertext and web services
>    web has hypertext links to create a network, web
>    services currently do not have a mechanism for defining
>    a newtwork.
>2. good for the "ilities" (scalability, reliability, etc)
>3. it always happens, just sometimes it is done outside
>    of the system.
>4. Most people expect to see it. If it is not there, our
>    audience will either be disappointed or will try to find
>    it. Either way confusion and mixed understanding will result.

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 21:22:53 GMT
