W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2003

Issue 5 and "webarch"

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 19:50:43 -0500
To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030102195043.A11526@www.markbaker.ca>

I just wanted to reply to this in order to tie into the TAG's webarch
document.

On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 03:49:32PM -0500, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> The difference is that in the first case
> > GET <some-uri> returning some machine-processable XML document
> 
> you have a URI that refers to the specific invoice instance. (which assumes
> that the client has received this invoice URI somewhere along the line)

Right.  That's the same with the non-URI identifier too though; that the
client has received the invoice number somewhere along the line.  And
perhaps the client even discovered them the same way, say in another
document, ala;

<some-doc>
  ...
  <invoice>249827348237432</invoice>
  ...
</some-doc>

versus

<some-doc>
  ...
  <invoice>http://somecompany.example.org/9238d928jd298sdfi9</invoice>
  ...
</some-doc>

But, independantly of whether you buy the argument that GET-of-a-URI is
a superior data retrieval mechanism than getInvoice()-over-POST, I would
like to point out that according to the TAG's latest Web architecture
draft, to do things in a Web architecture compatible way requires using
the former (ala issue 5).

From the draft;

"All important resources should have a URI"
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-use-uri

and if we were developing an invoicing app, I can think of nothing more
important than an invoice.  (though I'm sure we'll hear about DaveO's
unique interpretation of "important" 8-)

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 19:44:50 GMT

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