Initially, many people thought any service delivered over the Web was, logically enough, a Web service. At the time, however, that idea was considered an anathema to those of us who saw Web services as specific to the use of things like SOAP and Web Services Definition Language (WSDL).

Web-technologies groups are now forcing the acknowledgment that Web services will indeed use mechanisms other than SOAP, WSDL, or even Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI). Instead, standards such as Plain Old XML (POX) over HTTP and Representational State Transfer (REST) are asserting themselves as legitimate and very credible ways of delivering on the value proposition of Web services. As Web services assume more expansive definitions, we can represent them using a wide variety of formats and communications protocols. [italics mine]

You forgot ebXML... ;-)

RedMonk has argued for a while that we need a broader view of what a service is, but of course we're a somewhat easier ship to turn than Gartner.

Daryl has just done enterprise development shops and ISVs a big favour by reintroducing the notion of more flexibility into SOA thinking. Lets keep the architecture astronauts on the back foot and just think about data, people and processes, and how to link them using web modes.

Next time an architect starts pushing for a WS-I everywhere solution you can push back with pragmatism. If you're an enterprise and a vendor tries to tell the only way to build services is through WS-I, the classic "you must use UDDI" - then feel free to show them the door.  

Standards are useful, but not when they prevent us from getting things done. Standards that act as barriers to participation lose their utility.

Its really good to see that Daryl is part of the reality-based community... what do you do when the facts change? you change your analysis... That's just the way this business should work. [...]"