- From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:59:15 -0500
- To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
----- Forwarded by Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM on 12/09/2004 12:58 PM
-----
Francisco Curbera
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
12/09/2004 12:58 cc:
PM From: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBM01
Subject: Re: Gudges's diagrams from today's F2F on EPR comparison(Document link:
Francisco Curbera)
>I think the spec is quite clear that the identifying information is
>the URI and the RefProps.
That depends on how you define "identifying information". Can you explain
what are the precise semantics of that in your view?
Paco
Mark Baker
<distobj@acm.org> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Sent by: cc:
public-ws-addressing-req Subject: Re: Gudges's diagrams from today's F2F on EPR comparison
uest@w3.org
12/09/2004 09:53 AM
That's interesting, in particular the "Same identity" "answer" (at the
time the picture was taken, of course).
I think the spec is quite clear that the identifying information is
the URI and the RefProps. Nothing else is claimed to be an identifier
AFAICT, nor does the spec seem to allow other specs to add other
identifying information ... though it doesn't rule it out either, of
course (but IMO that would be very bad practice, since I believe that
identifiers should be self-descriptive within a message).
So why isn't the answer to that "1,2,3"? What's the reasoning behind
not immediately listing 1 as an answer? And similarly, why is #4 being
considered at all?
I'm curious about this, because I want to make sure I'm arguing to
exclude the right things from the spec. If other stuff might impact
what is identified, IMO it should be removed to. So answer *very*
carefully. P-) 8-)
Mark.
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 21:29:59 UTC