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

Re: targetResource wording

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:46:44 +0600
Message-ID: <0a6b01c33416$1ebd8e90$72545ecb@lankabook2>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> writes:
> 
> >From where I'm sitting, Sanjiva's definition seems to make the most
> sense.  So in that case, we're back to naming; while it's true that the

Cool. If we're down to naming that's definitely great progress!

> chunk of software is a resource, it is *not* true that all resources
> are chunks of software.

Agreed. I don't see @targetResource making such a claim however. 

> Therefore the attribute should not be called
> "targetResource", as that name suggests that any resource identifier can
> be a valid value. 

Any resource identifier that the service describer wishes to use is 
fine. The only requirement is that all the services that mess around
with that "resource" must use the same resource identifier.

> How about just "target"?

I think there was some discussion about this earlier, but I was
travelling and so didn't pay much attention. My feeling is that
it should say "targetResource"- the model that this started with
starts by saying that a Web service is a resource which can be
accessed/manipulated/used via one or more interfaces. The purpose
of @targetResource is to identify that resource. So I'd be ok
with calling it @resource if people like that. 

However, this is "just syntax" and as such I'd settle for an
agreement on the model and give in on the terminology as long as
it makes sense.

Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 10:46:37 GMT

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