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

RE: targetResource wording

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:15:07 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405E4A008@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 9:37 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: targetResource wording
> 

> I agree, I think this is the difference.

YAY!! A tiny step down the road to RESTifarian enlightenment.

> if it really can identify anything, then I believe my
> previous concerns are relevent.  If it's only intended to identify "an
> interface that encapsulates", then let's give it an appropriate name
> that doesn't include the word "resource".

Whoa, back to Restifarian kindergarten for one of us!  In what sense is an
interface -- some software object with identity, that is reachable by a Web
protocol -- not a "resource?"  The Webarch document says 'The term
"resource" encompasses all those things that populate the Web: documents,
services ("the weather forecast for Oaxaca"), people, organizations,
physical objects, and concepts.'  If DanC's freakin' car is a "resource"
then the SOAP interface to my ERP system is a "resource!"  No?

The point of the WSDL 1.2 targetResource proposal, as I understand it from
the WSA perspective, is to let the application developer writing the WSDL
file figure out whether it is referring to (ahem) a document, a service, a
person, an organization, a physical object, or a concept... we don't need to
constrain this for the WSDL document developer, just tell them to
(optionally) use it to refer to whichever instance of one of these
possibilities is meaningful in their application.
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2003 22:15:16 GMT

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