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

Re: arch diagrams from the f2f

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:48:07 -0400
To: "Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>, Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020919104807.D1346@www.markbaker.ca>

On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 10:32:57AM -0400, Sedukhin, Igor wrote:
> Mark, but how to you know about the URL to send HTTP GET? May be you
> called me over a phone or went to google search, right? That makes a
> logical operation of "publish", "find" using a discovery mechanism of
> choice. It can be P2P, like a port scan or it can be phone or what have
> you. Discovery is conceptually different than semantic interactions.
> That is what the triangle diagram captures.

I understand that, and completely see the value of it as a logical
model as you describe there.

My concern is that it's poorly suited to being a physical model to which
specifications are mapped, as those slides do.  This is because any
technologies, such as HTTP, which exist to bridge the gap between
publish/find/interact actions, will be marginalized because they won't
fit nicely - they'll fit in multiple places, and that will just confuse

For example, HTTP would fit under "interact", "find", and "publish".

Perhaps we could give HTTP a special place in the diagram, like a
circle wrapped around the whole thing?

I don't want to bog down on this though, and won't strenuously object
if concensus is that they want to go forward with Mark's slides.

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 10:48:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:59 UTC