W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2005

RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:51:59 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0CF65CF1@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

EPRs aren't defined to be identifiers.  An EPR may contain identifiers,
but it may contain state.  Therefore, there's no conflict with EPRs (as
a class) as they stand with advice to use URIs for identifiers.  

Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:16 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution
> 
> 
> David, Paco -
> 
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:16:47PM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> > What seems
> > to clearly fall outside the common minimum core is formal
identifier,
> > as well as Web identifier semantics.
> 
> Hmm, would you mind clarifying how such a statement relates to the
issue
> please?  Perhaps it does, but I can't see it.
> 
> "The Architecture of the World Wide Web, First Edition indicates that
> distinct resources must be assigned to distinct URIs. This must be
> considered when refining the mechanism for the service specific
> message headers."
> 
> Also, I don't know what either "formal identifier" or "Web identifier
> semantics" are, so any help you could provide in clarifying the
meaning
> of that sentence would be appreciated.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark.
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 17 January 2005 02:52:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:01 GMT