W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2006

RE: Review of Authoritative Metadata

From: Bullard, Claude L \(Len\) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:15:24 -0600
Message-ID: <7411F30464DC9C479FB14CFD348D71D9084897@US-MAIL.ingrnet.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Depends on the drugs.  I knew a pizza delivery man...

Just an aside:  I spent last week at a standards meeting 
where a tool for creating XML Schemas was being applied to 
a messaging standard.  Some of your observations with 
regards to the parsimony of HTTP were clearly pertinent. 
Turning nouns and verbs extracted by interview makes for a 
very complex document, and a way overbuilt messaging system. 
Eventually, it was tossed out and we turned to scenario 
design which proved to get better results but still overbuilt. 

When designing messaging payloads, what is the best approach?


From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Roy T. Fielding

Just to be clear, since it seems to have been lost in the noise,
I do believe that the finding applies equally to SOAP and WSDL.
Under no circumstances is a directory service more authoritative
than the service itself.  A discrepancy may indicate an error in
either the directory or the service, but the agent must treat the
service as authoritative because it is far more likely to be aware
of its own evolution over time than a disconnected directory.

This is no different from looking up a pharmacy in a phone book
and, upon calling the number supplied, discovering that a car
salesman answers the phone.  One should not attempt to buy drugs
from the car salesman just because the phonebook said they are
a pharmacy.

Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 20:15:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:48 UTC