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

RE: Web Service Architecture Usage Scenarios editors copy available

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:24:38 -0700
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011b01c1f228$26bb5770$af0ba8c0@beasys.com>

> Respectfully, the TAG does not "own" Web architecture.  The TAG's job
> is to document it, not define it.
>

Part of the TAGs job is to interpret and clarify.  A good example of this is
the finding that you reference.  It's strange that you would quote a TAG
finding to support your claim, then dispute whether the TAG has
responsibility in interpreting the web architecture.

> Also, you are incorrect when you say that the TAG has issued
> no finding
> that supports my claims; they have issued one finding[1]
> which includes
> the statement "All important resources should be identifiable
> by URI.".
> The examples in section 2.4 of the use cases don't use a URI
> to identify
> the stock, they use a parameter in a SOAP envelope.
>
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/01-uriMediaType-9
>

The TAG is also looking documenting at "what is a resource".   There has
been great debate on this, and you know that.

Further, wrt SOAP, the TAG has been asked, by a TAG member, to review SOAP
1.2 wrt web architecture.  The TAG hasn't yet issued a finding on this.
It's premature to claim that various SOAP modelling styles are in violation
of web architecture, given the TAG hasn't issued a finding on what you
claim.

And whether a stock classifies an "important" resource wrt URI assignment is
debatable.

The real point is that this area is still in the air, and open to
interpretation.

Let's let the TAG do the work in their forum and when they come out with
more definitive work, then we can look at the examples.  That work for you?

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 18:28:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:59 GMT