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

Re: targetResource wording

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:20:48 -0400
Message-ID: <005d01c3375a$079d00a0$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

But can't a piece of software that executes a process be a resource?
Going back to Savas's question -- does the targetResource represent a
specific printer or a printing service that can assign the print job to one
of a set of printers? I would expect that it could be either, at the
determination of the person that supplies the resource. I can think of a
host of use cases where the whole point of the service is to encapsulate a
set of resources behind a single process.

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>;
<www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: targetResource wording


>
> +1
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624
>
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org wrote on 06/20/2003 12:50:24 PM:
>
> >
> >
> > At 08:46 PM 6/19/2003 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > >From Sanjiva and Mike, I understood that the [targetResource]
> attribute
> > > identified a "chunk of software" (my words),
> >
> > Some of the earlier postings may have used language or examples that
> gave
> > that impression, but it's incorrect.  The resource it identifies *could*
> be
> > a chunk of software, but it's entirely up to the (application-defined)
> > semantics of those particular WSDL descriptions.  WSDL 1.2 has nothing
> to
> > say about whether that resource is or is not a chunk of software.  And
> in
> > the printer example, it probably would *not* be.
> >
> > >Where it gets really confusing for me is when words like "resource" and
> > >"manipulation" are used, as you do there, because that suggests that
> > >we're talking about the actual resource(s?) which are manipulated at
> > >runtime behind the service.  So rather than "a chunk of software in
> > >the printer", I get the impression that you're saying that the URI
> > >identifies "the printer",
> >
> > Yes, in the printer example it would probably represent "the printer" --
>
> > not a "chunk of software".
> >
> > > > Regarding the name "targetResource", u does identify a resource, so
> the
> > > > "Resource" part of the name definitely is appropriate.
> > >
> > >I strongly disagree.  By that measure, everything which accepts a URI
> > >as an argument should be called "resource".
> >
> > I think what you're saying here is that just because URI u exists, that
> > does not magically cause a corresponding resource r to exist.  That is
> > correct.  However, the "targetResource='u'" is *asserting* that such a
> > resource exists.  The assertion could be false, but that's what it is
> > asserting.  It is analogous to the fact that a WSDL document is
> *asserting*
> > that a corresponding service exists.  It might not, but that's what the
> > WSDL document is asserting.
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Booth
> > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> >
>
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 14:31:26 GMT

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