RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers - alternative proposal

+1.  URIs have infinite scale, see cantor's theorem.  

The reason banks don't give out phone #s per person is because phone #s
are not extensible as the phone system understands a finite length.
There's a fascinating discussion we could have about the benefits that
the phone system accrues by having mandatory fixed length (shades of
mandatory action).

The reason for having RefPs has nothing to do with URI extensibility. It
has everything to do with configurability particularly having soap
specific software handle the RefP rather than URI software.

I have no problem talking about architecture, but we have to at least be
able to distinguish between scalability and extensibility.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:39 AM
> To: Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk; David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers - alternative proposal
> 
> Hi Savas!
> 
> i'm puzzled by the 'scaling' argument. OK the Bank might not
> hand out specific telnos to customers, but only because the CLI
> scheme is of limited length. However the URI scheme does scale
> pretty well and could well be used by the bank to give each
> customer their own address:
> 
> http://mybank.example.com/customer/paul_downey
> mailto://accountno-12223213432@mybank.example.com
> 
> as opposed to addressing messages:
> 
> mailto://soap@mybank.example.com
> 
>  <someHeaderWhichCouldBeAParamOrAPropertyHelpImConfused>
>    <accountNo>12223213432</accountNo>
>  </someHeaderWhichCouldBeAParamOrAPropertyHelpImConfused>
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Savas
> Parastatidis
> Sent: 03 December 2004 10:31
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers - alternative proposal
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: 02 December 2004 21:07
> > To: Savas Parastatidis; Francisco Curbera;
public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers - alternative proposal
> >
> > I don't know what the difference between a bank account and a
banking
> > service is.  What is the difference between the 2 from a software
> > perspective?
> >
> 
> You are not given a telephone number specific to your bank account to
> address it whenever you want because that doesn't scale for the bank.
> Only very few customers (the very-very good ones) may be given a
> direct/personalised phone number to access their account.
> No-money-in-bank-account-Savas gets the banking service's general
phone
> number and have to _explicitly_ identify the bank account for which a
> balance check is requested (always getting the same "no money" answer
> though :-) This scales.
> 
> However, this is now turning into an architecture/design discussion
but
> that's the only way I can think of I can explain the difference I see.
> 
> > I'll note that WSDL 2.0 service elements can describe most, if not
all
> > of the Web resources.
> >
> > We do Web services so that we can have interactions that are
typically
> > characterized by sending SOAP messages and has WSDL descriptions,
but
> > there is no clear technical distinctions between Web services and
non
> > Web services (such as Web or Semantic Web) technologies.  There are
> > marketing differences definitely.
> >
> 
> I think we continue to disagree. While I see the role of semantic web
> technologies in a service-oriented architecture (semantic descriptions
> as metadata for services), I personally see a difference between the
> resource-focused Web and a service-oriented world. But we are going to
> architecture matters again.
> 
> > I think that if you look at the heart of your differentiation,
you'll
> > find that they are circular or illogical.  Resources are things that
> are
> > identified by "universal resource identifiers".  Services are things
> > that are interacted with in service oriented manner.  Etc.
> >
> > So, I suggest not trying to differentiate between "services" and
> > "resources" for the purpose of EPRs as identifiers issue.
> >
> 
> Apologies for starting a "EPRs are addresses of what" thread under
this
> subject but it seemed relevant.
> 
> Best regards,
> .savas.
>

Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 16:01:47 UTC