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

RE: i001: EPRs as identifiers: update to EPR pros and cons by adding ref prop scenario

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:10:50 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0C27FF39@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

What is the point of this?  I haven't been asked by the WG to produce a
document of such a form, just a comparison.  I'd be glad to, but I
wasn't asked to.

Also, I disagree with good chunks of the content.  You say the same
thing - that using referencePs takes an address/identifier out of the
web - repeatedly.  I guess I could say "soap processing model" 50 times,
but what's the point of that?   This seems like a "Yes it does No it
doesn't Yes it does No it doesn't" kind of discussion style.  

Also, I disagree with your conclusion.  My update conclusion says that
there are pros and cons to both, and yours is an advocacy position.

Also, you did not include a reference property example.  Why publish
such a document that slags reference properties and yet not include a
reference property example that you know exists?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:04 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: i001: EPRs as identifiers: update to EPR pros and cons by
> adding ref prop scenario
> * Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> [2004-12-03 19:00-0500]
> [..]
> > Based on previous discussions that have not been reflected in your
> > updated comparison, I and other believe that having this new
> > identification mechanism is a bad idea.
> I am attaching an updated comparison that I had been working on. It
> has some parts that I think should be removed, but didn't want to hide
> them as I didn't think there was consensus around this and didn't want
> to upset anybody.
> Regards,
> Hugo
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Saturday, 4 December 2004 02:10:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC