W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2005

RE: EndpointRefs-47

From: Rice, Ed (HP.com) <ed.rice@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:48:59 -0700
Message-ID: <7D6953BFA3975C44BD80BA89292FD60E034A2394@cacexc08.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@bea.com>, <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

I like Tim's draft.  Point out that they're not consistent with the architecture and explain why.

Saying that in certain circumstances it may be convenient or beneficial seems to imply that if its convenient its ok to be inconsistent?

Sorry, you guys are better versed in this than I.. But I'm trying to understand why we would say anything at all if our response is along the lines of well, its against the rules but that's ok.  Wouldn't that set a precedence?

My 2c.
-Ed



-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:01 AM
To: noah_mendelsohn@bea.com; Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: RE: EndpointRefs-47


I roughly agree with Noah's wording.  But I think that "convenience" isn't the only issue.  Further, I'm not quite sure what "integrated with the web" means, I'd prefer "on the web.".  My suggestion for the 3rd sentence is:

In certain circumstances, identification using other EPR properties may be convenient or beneficial for other reasons, but care must be taken to weigh the tradeoffs inherent in deploying resources that are not available on the Web."

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
> Of noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com.bea.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:22 AM
> To: Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: EndpointRefs-47
> 
> 
> I see that nobody from the TAG has replied explicitly to Tim's draft, and
> I think we're hoping to wrap this up on the call today.   I agree with the
> spirit of Tim's proposal, but suggest some revisions.   Reasons:
> 
> * I think the direct reference to and criticism of specs such as WS-RF 
> is somewhat inflamatory and inappropriate given that we are drafting text for
> WSA to include in their Recommendation.   Perhaps Tim didn't intend this
> as Rec. text.   I have no problem with making and debating such comments
> in email, and I share some of the concerns about WS-RF.  I'm just 
> suggesting that in a Recommendation it's out of place.
> 
> * Having taken out that reference, something else needs to go in, so 
> I've drafted an alternative.
> 
> <tim'sDraft>
> "Use of the abstract properties of an EPR other than wsa:address to 
> identify resources is contrary to WebArch" For example, we note that 
> WS-RF specification uses EPRs to identify information resources (such 
> as for example experimental datasets in the Grid) which prevents 
> hypertext links from being made to them. We said that, and then said 
> that we realize that current tools may not make it easy to do things 
> that way, e.g. because of dispatch issues.
> </tim'sDraft>
> 
> <proposedRevision use="IncludeasNoteinWSARec">
> Note: "According to the Architecture of the World Wide Web: ' To 
> benefit from and increase the value of the World Wide Web, agents should provide
> URIs as identifiers for resources.' [1]   Thus, use of the abstract
> properties of an EPR other than wsa:address to identify resources is 
> contrary to Web Archictecture.  In certain circumstances, 
> identification using other EPR properties may be convenient, but care 
> must be taken to weigh the tradeoffs inherent in deploying resources 
> that are not well integrated with the Web."
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-use-uris
> </proposedRevision>
> 
> Sorry I didn't get this in earlier.  Anyway, I'll be suggesting this 
> alternative on the call today.  Thank you.
> 
> Noah
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vincent Quint <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr> Sent by: 
> www-tag-request@w3.org
> 10/20/2005 07:20 AM
> Please respond to Vincent.Quint
> 
>         To:     www-tag@w3.org
>         cc:     Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr, (bcc: Noah
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        EndpointRefs-47
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> At the end of the last TAG telcon, we were close to consensus about 
> the text to ask WSA to put in their spec. Here is the last version Tim 
> has put together at the end of the teleconference (see the draft minutes [1]):
> 
> "Use of the abstract properties of an EPR other than wsa:address to 
> identify resources is contrary to WebArch" For example, we note that 
> WS-RF specification uses EPRs to identify information resources (such 
> as for example experimental datasets in the Grid) which prevents 
> hypertext links from being made to them. We said that, and then said 
> that we realize that current tools may not make it easy to do things 
> that way, e.g. because of dispatch issues.
> 
> Reactions, comments?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/10/18-minutes.html
> ----------
> Vincent Quint                       INRIA Rhône-Alpes
> INRIA                               ZIRST
> e-mail: Vincent.Quint@inria.fr      655 avenue de l'Europe
> Tel.: +33 4 76 61 53 62             Montbonnot
> Fax:  +33 4 76 61 52 07             38334 Saint Ismier Cedex
>                                     France
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2005 21:49:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:46 UTC