- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:36:39 -0500
- To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Hi, On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:08:51AM -0500, Francisco Curbera wrote: > Mark, > > I think that the argument (in your referenced mail below) that addresses > are some form of identifiers is rather weak. Alternatively, it is a strong > argument claiming that addresses are very weak identifiers :-) 8-) > Architecting > systems on the assumption that you may identify resources with an address > is a recipe for disaster. Respectfully, I think the Web is a rather emphatic counterpoint to that argument. > The idea that network endpoints can be provided > URI identifiers is a different matter; my opinion is only that runtime > service endpoint addresses should not be constrained to be URIs (although > some may want to do just that). They are resources, even important ones, and so should have URIs IMO, and per "webarch". But I guess we're still waiting for the motivating example about why they shouldn't be, so perhaps Gudge will surprise me with a good one. There's probably not much more to be said until that happens, I think. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:34:23 UTC