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

Re: Draft wording for targetResource attribute

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:25:31 +0600
Message-ID: <041101c32f53$c6c55cc0$1f02000a@lankabook2>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I think this is fine, but IMHO its a far out edge-case .. thus I
would rather have us define equivalence for endpoints (ports)
within a single <service> element rather than talking about stuff
across different <service>s.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Draft wording for targetResource attribute


>
> David,
>
> I've fought on one telcon for the wording, whatever it ends up being, to
> include the following explanation (not necessarily in the same words):
>
> Different ports in two services with the same interface and the same
> targetResource are interchangeable in the same sense as different ports
> within one service with that interface and targetResource. I.e. from the
> point of view of the ports, it doesn't really matter if I write
>
> <service name="a" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
>    <port name="x">...</port>
> </service>
> <service name="b" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
>    <port name="y">...</port>
> </service>
>
> or
>
> <service name="c" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
>    <port name="x">...</port>
>    <port name="y">...</port>
> </service>
>
> It seemed to me that there was general agreement to this.
>
> Best regards,
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Senior Architect
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 21:19, David Booth wrote:
> > The current draft wording on targetResource[1] says: "The targetResource
> > attribute information item identifies the resource that the service is a
> > representation of."
> >
> > 1. This wording seems to be using the term "representation" in a way
that
> > is different from the usage in the TAG's Web Architecture
> > document[2].  Wherever possible, I think we should be consistent with
the
> > WebArch's use of terms.
> >
> > 2. This wording also seems unnecessarily restrictive.  The
targetResource
> > indicates a relationship between the WSDL service and some other
> > resource.  Although one good use of it is to indicate that two WSDL
> > services operate on the same physical object (such as a printer), it
seems
> > to me that: (a) the exact nature of the relationship will always depend
on
> > the semantics of the particular application or service that is defined;
and
> > (b) there may be other legitimate uses that don't necessarily involve
the
> > same physical object.  For this reason I think we are best off saying as
> > little as possible about it in our spec.
> >
> > Accordingly, I propose changing the above wording to something like:
"The
> > targetResource attribute information item identifies a resource that is
> > related to the service.  The nature of the relationship depends on the
> > semantics of the service."
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > 1. WSDL 1.2 draft:
> >
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html#Service_
resource_attribute
> >
> >
> > 2. TAG Web Arch: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#representations
> >
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 09:25:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:25 GMT