W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2004

Re: i0001: EPRs as identifiers - alternative proposal

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:36:39 -0500
To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041202163639.GM12173@markbaker.ca>

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:08:51AM -0500, Francisco Curbera wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> I think that the argument (in your referenced mail below) that addresses
> are some form of identifiers is rather weak. Alternatively, it is a strong
> argument claiming that addresses are very weak identifiers :-)

8-)

> Architecting
> systems on the assumption that you may identify resources with an address
> is a recipe for disaster.

Respectfully, I think the Web is a rather emphatic counterpoint to that
argument.

> The idea that network endpoints can be provided
> URI identifiers is a different matter; my opinion is only that runtime
> service endpoint addresses should not be constrained to be URIs (although
> some may want to do just that).

They are resources, even important ones, and so should have URIs IMO,
and per "webarch".  But I guess we're still waiting for the motivating
example about why they shouldn't be, so perhaps Gudge will surprise me
with a good one.  There's probably not much more to be said until that
happens, I think.

Cheers,

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:34:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT