RE: httpRange-14

Hi David,

> WS folks don't need to differentiate between People and 
> Documents.

Hmmm.... but maybe the WSDL folks are looking for a way to "differentiate"
between, message types; message part types; port types; operations;
operation parameters... and so forth.

Seems like an analogous problem *if* you want a solution which enable you to
"differentiate" purely on the basis of inspecting the name assigned to a
'thing'.

Cheers,

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
> Sent: 28 July 2003 17:48
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: httpRange-14
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf 
> > Of Tim Berners-Lee
> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:26 AM
> > To: Tim Bray
> > Cc: Norman Walsh; www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: httpRange-14
> <snip/>
> > You say that the TAG should concentrate on the web as it has been 
> > before the semantic web and web services, and that you will 
> be happy 
> > if the architecture works for that, even if it does not work for web
> > services and semantic web.
> >
> > That is a pity, partly because the web is no good unless it 
> can be a 
> > sound foundation for the semantic web and web services too. 
> WSDL and 
> > RDF have real serious issues on the table, working groups 
> which need a
> > consistent framework.
> >
> 
> I think the Web has been pretty good so far.  And it has 
> provided a good foundation for Web services.  There are 
> regular grumblings in Web services land about the limitations 
> of Web, but people are certainly living with the Web roughly 
> as-is.  WSDL has brought up an issue that we have more work 
> to do on, but it's hardly holding up their work.  Now maybe 
> their issue of identifiers is httpRange-14, but I don't think 
> so.  They aren't doing any of the same kind of computations 
> that Semantic Web folks want to do on the identifiers.  WS 
> folks don't need to differentiate between People and 
> Documents.  Perhaps in the fullness of time, WS will run into 
> this problem, but it's not stopping development and 
> deployment of Web services. Therefore, this problem is not 
> central to Web services.  Further, I think that many members 
> of WSD would be dismayed that their simple and good faith 
> request for "can we do our frag-ids this way" - which was 
> based upon a Semantic Web request for identifiers for all 
> important WSDL concepts - would then be used to say that 
> http-range 14 has to be solved for V1 of Web Arch document.  
> I think it is clearly a Semantic Web problem.  I'm not sure 
> what other domains are affected.  But not directly a WS problem.
> 
> > It is also a pity, given that the Advisory Committee asked us 
> > specifically to give guidance in these new areas, with priority.
> >
> 
> And the AC also gave us some guidance that the preference was 
> for earlier publication, potentially ommitting work related 
> to enabling other applications.  But we then told the AC that 
> there was no conflict between the Web as-is and future 
> applications like SW and WS. hmm..
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
>

Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 06:15:32 UTC