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

Re: Naming the service resource

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:35:36 -0400
Message-ID: <007501c340c8$bc53a0e0$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: "Cordau@Acm. Org" <cordau@acm.org>, "Www-Ws-Desc@W3. Org" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

In response to your example, it's up to the provider of the resource to say
if the new implementation is the same resource as the original one or if it
is a different one. I can think of many reasons why you might want to go
either way. Speaking from a best practices point of view, though, I probably
wouldn't identify the new one as my production resource until I'm ready to
release it as a production service. In that case, it would be a
development/test resource (a different resouce) until I promote it to
productions status (at which point it replaces my original resource).

IMHO, the ability to select a service based on reliable response time is a
separate issue and not part of the service's basic identity.

Does no one else out there think that the service is an "important
resource," i.e., one that should be named?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ugo Corda" <cordau@acm.org>
To: "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <anne@manes.net>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: Naming the service resource

> Ann,
> Thank you for your clarifications. I think now I better understand your
> point of view. But I am still not convinced that it is appropriate to
> introduce the concept of service resource at this point (it might be in
> future, if and when the WSD group decides to get heavily involved with
> service semantics).
> Defining the concept of a service resource that abstracts from particular
> implementations and endpoints is not easy in the general case and might
> ultimately depend on the application.
> To give you an example, suppose there are two implementations of the same
> service interface. They have different endpoints but they do exactly the
> same thing. There are two of them because the first one is a very slow
> legacy implementation and the second one is a brand new, much faster
> implementation. (But the second implementation is still undergoing
> so some times it is taken off line and people can only use the first one).
> Do the two implementations represent the same service resource?
> Well, it depends. If my application does not care about the response time,
> then I conclude that certainly they have the same semantics and I would be
> happy if somebody gave me a serviceResourceURI through which I could use
> either endpoint.
> But if my application can only operate under the response time provided by
> the second implementation, I would conclude that they indeed have
> semantics so that using a unique serviceResourceURI would be misleading.
> So, depending on the user's point of view, what is an implementation
> in one case becomes a semantic differentiator in the other, and different
> implementations might or might not meaningfully correspond to the same
> service resource ...
> Ugo
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 14:35:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:43 UTC