RE: New AFTF draft.

There's no question that there can be cases where an "attachment" is only 
a representation.  For example, if I send a SOAP message that has as it's 
semantic:  "retrieve a representation of the resource at 
http://example.org/somejpg.jpg then the resource definitely stays behind, 
or at least that's an appealing and very traditional web view.

Now, here's the question:  what if the .jpg I'm sending back is not in 
some sense "backed" be a resource that has any embodiment outside of the 
message.  After all, the envelope itself is certainly a part with a MIME 
type (application/soap+xml).  It's arguably a representation of a 
resource, but if I say "what resource", you'd probably say "well the 
envelope resource that travels with or is conceptually a part of that 
message as it moves through the system."  Now, if I have some binary data, 
a JPEG media type for example, that's conceptually part of the message but 
that I package as an attachment, I can ask the same question:  "yes, it's 
a representation of a resource, but what resource?"  As with the envelope 
itself I would say: "well, it's a representation of a resource that is an 
image (I presume) that is a part of the message.  It in no sense stays 
behind anywhere, because it's only embodiment is in the message."

So, that's the case I think we need to be sure we've explained well.  No 
question there's also an easier more traditional Web case where the 
resource in some sense either stays behind, or is at an indeterminate 
place or places not directly tied to the message.   Many thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
09/11/2002 11:14 PM

 
        To:     "'John J. Barton'" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" 
<moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "'Carine Bournez'" 
<carine@w3.org>, "'Herve Ruellan'" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, 
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah 
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: New AFTF draft.



I think I disagree that attachments are resources from the soap module
perspective.  Regardless of the packaging or boxcarring mechanism, they 
are
representations in flight.  URI usage does not mean that attachments are
resources.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John J. Barton [mailto:John_Barton@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:43 AM
> To: David Orchard; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; 'Christopher B Ferris'
> Cc: 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; 'Carine Bournez'; 'Herve Ruellan';
> xml-dist-app@w3.org; 'Yves Lafon'
> Subject: RE: New AFTF draft.
>
>
>  From the perspective of the SOAP module the attachments are
> resources.  That is why we use URIs to name them.
>
>  From the perspective of the packaging module the attachments
> are representations.  It deals with bytes.
>
> The confusing concept from the Web point of view is "Compound
> SOAP structure".  This programming construct cannot be
> precisely defined: it may contain pointers that are not bound.  A
> compound SOAP structure is a logically a "view" rather than a
> physical region of memory or a packet of data.  The construct
> that can be defined is the message package.  That is why writing
> the spec for the package is easier that defining how the package
> looks from the SOAP layer.
>
> John.
>
> At 06:44 AM 9/11/2002 -0700, David Orchard wrote:
>
> >Seems to me it should be a representation rather than a
> resource.  Even
> >though the representation might be identified by a URI (and
> so be confused
> >with a Resource).  The web architecture is pretty clear that
> resources are
> >hidden by servers.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:04 AM
> > > To: Christopher B Ferris
> > > Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Carine Bournez; Herve Ruellan;
> > > xml-dist-app@w3.org; Yves Lafon
> > > Subject: Re: New AFTF draft.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > They're not resources, but representations of resources?
> > > Personally, I think part reads better than resource in
> this context.
> > >
> > > Jean-Jacques.
> > >
> > > Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> > > > Well, there's 'resource' which fits in nicely with the Web
> > > architecture.
> > > >
> > > > e.g.
> > > >         "Compound SOAP structure
> > > >          A compound SOAP structure consists of a primary
> > > SOAP message part
> > > >          and zero or more related resources."
> > > >
> > > > I would even go as far as to add: "identified by a URI".
> > >
>
> ______________________________________________________
> John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm
> MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
> 1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
> Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
>
>

Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 17:26:42 UTC