W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2002

Re: A REST challenge

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:32:40 -0700
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
To: bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
Message-Id: <56BF514C-99C4-11D6-A3D4-000393A3327C@fla.fujitsu.com>

Hey,
   All I did was to let off the stink bomb!

   I have my doubts about the REST architecture, not as a valid 
technological solution but from a religious POV (i.e., it seems to me 
that RESTers are a pretty religious lot)

  I am learning a lot though.

There are some hard issues here, on the other hand I see no reason to 
support an architecture that doesn't meet our basic needs.

As to my preferred approach, you need the notions of an agent, a 
conversation, communicative acts, a contract, a social/business 
relationship before you can properly model the normal business cycle.

Frank

On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 08:34  AM, bhaugen wrote:

>
> Francis,
>
> I thought you were the champion of a semantic approach
> to these problems.
>
> Instead of technical kludges like "correlation ID",
> which has no semantic value, why don't you
> define a business semantic model of the
> conversation and its contents?
>
> E.g. you have an Order and a Delivery and
> an Account with a Balance.  The Delivery
> fulfills the Order.
>
> If you think of the conversation as speech acts,
> the Order is a Commitment, and Delivery
> fulfills the Commitment.
>
> Etc.
>
> It seems to me that all of the above concepts
> are much more like REST resources than
> SOAP methods.
>
> -Bob Haugen
> ebXML, eBTWG, UN/CEFACT Business Process Modeling projects
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 16:32:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:02 GMT