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

Re: Binding

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 21:52:22 -0500
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <000e01c2b5f7$cd420240$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

Mark,
 
> For example, assuming that a URI was tagged with "ibm-related-things",
> then an app written to grab and analyze stuff related to IBM would
> want to recognize that element and invoke GET on the URI.  A wide
> variety of forms of data could be returned for analysis, including
> data that doesn't have anything to do with IBM; a runtime type
> error (which should indicate that binding is still late).
> 
 
In other words, "ibm-related-things" is a partial specification, leading to
immediate partial understanding, which can be developed into full
understanding by the coordinating applications if the ROI warrants
that, and the ROI calculation can be performed at runtime, not design
time, but actually at either time.

Comments?

So when the app does GET on the URI, it gets something it wasn't
anticipating, and then has to make sense out of that.  But not necessarily
complete sense.  It can weed out irrelevant content based on some
heuristic.  The remaining question is: when the app wants to do something
other than snoop around, how is the understanding gained?  How does
that differ from the WSDL method?  How "late" can WSDL be bound?
Is there some limit where both approaches converge?  Is the benefit of
late binding to be expressed just in the tightness of feedback loops, or
something else?  How important is "partial specification" and "partial
understanding" in all this?

Thanks,
Walden
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 21:53:29 GMT

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