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

Re: Separate concepts for "service" and "targetResource?" (was RE: /service/@targetResource ?)

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 23:10:50 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF27D075E.4124B2B4-ON85256D2E.00115E1D-85256D2E.0011790F@us.ibm.com>

+1

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 05/21/2003 10:24:59 PM:

> 
> Walden Mathews wrote:
> 
> >Arkin,
> >
> >Thank you.  Your question points to the essence.  You don't
> >care whose ATM you're using.  You don't care what software it
> >runs.  The only think you care about is YOUR account and
> >what you can do to it.  That's the resource.  It's the one thing
> >in the picture with meaningful, long-lived identity.
> > 
> >
> Yes, but that's a different resource than the targetResource discussed 
> so far.
> 
> If I don't care which ATM I'm using then the ATM I use today and the ATM 

> you use today may be the same ATM, the same service. But you can't 
> switch the targetResource based on who is accessing the ATM. So my 
> account is not the targetResource, but "the ATM network" could be the 
> resource that links all these services together.
> 
> If my bank account would be the service-resource then I would run into 
> three problems:
> 
> 1. The ATM would be multiple services, one for each account it can 
> manage, so you end up with ATMxAccount service definitions.
> 2. I would need to use one ATM to withdraw money from my checking 
> account, another to withdraw money from my credit card, another to get a 

> balance of my savings account
> 3. The ATM could only handle one account at a time, which would prevent 
> me from using it to move money from one account to another.
> 
> So tying the service definition to the actual resource behind that 
> service creates a complexity problem for me, and quite frankly doesn't 
> give me anything since I can already identify individual services by 
> their QName.
> 
> On the other hand, tying multiple services to some global, non-specific 
> resource to say they are all equivalent in some way, works for me, and 
> that's not something I can do given just the service QName. (Though, one 

> could say that I could use the service targetNamespace to the same 
effect)
> 
> arkin
> 
> >Walden
> > 
> >
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 23:11:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:19 GMT