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

Re: MEP text

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 18:47:22 +0200
To: jones@research.att.com
Cc: dmh@contivo.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030701164722.GF4662@w3.org>

* jones@research.att.com <jones@research.att.com> [2003-06-27 14:46-0400]
> 	Still to be discussed:
> 		* If a MEP does not have an identifier, is it still a mep?
> 			I think so and therefor suggest "may have" instead of "has"
> I'd be happier with "should" if we are going to weaken it.  Having an
> identifier (URI) allows the world to talk about it -- and there is
> plenty that one needs to say about MEPs.

The definition of an MEP is something important that one is likely to
want to refer to, and therefore that we want to make sure we can
identify, as per AR009.3.

To me, an MEP which doesn't have an identifier is an MEP which is
being observed but hasn't been defined: an example would be that I
sent a message to a service, and I am waiting to see what I am going
to get back, and infer that the combination of my message and what I
got back (0, 1, 15 messages) constitutes the MEP for the instantiation
of a service. My feeling is that it is the kind of thing that we don't
want to talk about in our architecture, since we want to talk about
describable concepts.

Therefore, "has" looks good to me.



Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 12:47:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:08 UTC