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

Re: MEP text

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:21:59 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030702162036.026d7d28@localhost>
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, jones@research.att.com
Cc: dmh@contivo.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org

+1

MEPs are important enough to identify, and WSDL 1.2 does identify each MEP 
with a URI.


At 06:47 PM 7/1/2003 +0200, Hugo Haas wrote:

>* 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.
>
>Regards,
>
>Hugo
>
>--
>Hugo Haas - W3C
>mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 16:22:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT