> I would begin by querying folks at the following
> organizations who undoubtedly have members with quick
> access to this sort of data.
Hmm, actually, not so much. These guys are all geeks and don't track that sort of stuff. The IETF particularly... But thanks.
> Like you, I've heard and read this assertion that 'web
> services' saved the 'Net.
No, sorry, that's neither what I said nor what I've heard others say. I said that there is this idea that some very specific technical changes in the HTTP protocol (moving from pre-1.0 to 1.1, defined in at least 2 IETF RFCs) that "saved the Web", not "Web Services", which is something else altogether.
> Web Services usually means those things you can do
> with J2EE as implemented via BEA Weblogic or IBM
> Websphere to name prominent dev platforms.
No, not really. That is, one might use a J2EE app server to do web services, but web services is not the same as what one might do with a J233 app server.
For a techie presentation of what Web Services is, look at the W3C's Web Services Architecture document (an early version of which I wrote a column about):
Web Services Architecture http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/
A Tour of the Web Services Architecture http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2003/06/18/ws-arch.html
> Enter J2EE, enter web services. Now we know what JAVA
> is good for: providing methods for presenting and
> manipulating new and legacy data via a browser.
No, sorry, but this is just not accurate at all. The endpoints of a typical web service do not include browsers or human agents.
Best, Kendall Clark -- Do you realize that happiness makes you cry?
-- The Flaming Lips