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

RE: targetResource wording

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:48:29 +0100
Message-ID: <BC28A9E979C56C44BCBC2DED313A447001D75739@bond.ncl.ac.uk>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

David,

[snip long, very helpful message]

Thank you very much for the example. It was enlightening.

So, I guess it's a matter of preference. The @targetResource introduces
identity to a web service resulting in a great number of services, as in
your example. You end up having 3000 printer services and 5000
management services.

Personally, I see Web services as coarse software agents. I see only one
printer service and only one management service.

If you want to locate the printer that is closer to you, you go to a
printer registry (perhaps through the management service or a printer
registry service) and you get back a printer id, an XML instance that
adheres to the Printer XML Schema defined by my organisation.

The Printer XML Schema I got back can be passed as an argument to the
operations supported by my printer and management services.

Your RDF and registry examples are still valid. Instead of finding
services, though, you find printer tokens, ids, URIs (call them as you
want).

Such an approach is closer to the document-exchange model of Web
services. If my understanding is correct, the targetResource encourages
services to be seen as objects rather than coarse software components.
We move to an O-O based approach instead of a component based one.

I can see the value in both approaches.

Regards,
.savas.
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 17:48:32 GMT

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