RE: targetResource wording

All,

I am not supporting one or the other view. I am just trying to
understand the rational behind @targetResource.

So, let's assume that my organisation provides a printing Web service to
the world.

<interface name="PrintInterface">
   <operation name="Print">
      ...
   </operation>
</interface>

<service name="PrintService"
         targetResource="http://myorganisation.com/printing">
   ...
</service>

Or

<service name="PrintService"
         targetResource="http://myorganisation.com/printerA">
   ...
</service>

Now, is "printing" the resource or "printerA"?

If it is the former, is it really necessary? I could argue that the
service name and interface already tell me that.

If it is the later, as it was suggested during the discussion, does it
mean that if I add a new printer in my organisation I would have to
expose a new service?

<service name="PrintService"
         targetResource="http://myorganisation.com/printerB">
   ...
</service>

Doesn't this break encapsulation? Would I have to create a new service
for every printer in my organisation?

Just trying to understand...

Thank you,
.savas.