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

i001: EPRs - identifiers

From: Winkler, Steve <steve.winkler@sap.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:52:03 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0F406132@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Hi Mark,

Just so you know, I scribed this meeting and capturing the discussion
based on the whiteboard was very difficult.  I'll post what minutes I
had later, but we agreed that it would be useful if Gudge could put some
text around this and start a discussion on the mailing list.  Hopefully
that will help clarify things for you.

-steve

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, Dec 09, 2004 6:54 AM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Gudges's diagrams from today's F2F on EPR comparison



That's interesting, in particular the "Same identity" "answer" (at the
time the picture was taken, of course).

I think the spec is quite clear that the identifying information is
the URI and the RefProps.  Nothing else is claimed to be an identifier
AFAICT, nor does the spec seem to allow other specs to add other
identifying information ... though it doesn't rule it out either, of
course (but IMO that would be very bad practice, since I believe that
identifiers should be self-descriptive within a message).

So why isn't the answer to that "1,2,3"?  What's the reasoning behind
not immediately listing 1 as an answer?  And similarly, why is #4 being
considered at all?

I'm curious about this, because I want to make sure I'm arguing to
exclude the right things from the spec.  If other stuff might impact
what is identified, IMO it should be removed to.  So answer *very*
carefully.  P-) 8-)

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 22:44:51 GMT

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