W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Some comments on 27 June 2003 Web Arch WD

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:46:12 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC558@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>

It means something the web system can identify and retrieve 
using its own well-defined means.  A lot of bits have been 
wasted unless the meaning of 'something' is clear.  Given 
REST, it is the representation of a resource, and I'll leave 
that as stated without dropping into the rat holes of abstraction 
and existence.

Unless the web is understood to be a system, an architecture 
makes very little sense or difference.  It shouldn't be that 
hard to state that a representation of a resource is 'on the web' 
if the web's means of identification and retrieval can be 
used and it can be observed that they successfully do retrieve 
the representation.  The property 'on the web' can only be proved 
by testing.  It can be defined in terms of the test.

len


From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]

1. We regularly use the phrase "on the web" in our document.  It should be
defined to be more complete.
2. We have lots of other things in our document that we should cut if we
want to apply just that metric.
3. Common sense to me says that Web Arch v1.0 should define what on the web
means.
4. Other groups within the W3C, at least ws-arch and xmlp, use this phrase.
It would be good to have a normative definition so that I don't have to yet
again say what I think it means.  Part of the reason for doing web arch is
so that we have consensus on what things mean, rather than single opinions
without any consensus opinion.
5. I don't think this is huge scope creep that will cause us to slip our
schedule.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 12:46:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:18 GMT