- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:20:30 -0400
- To: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFB0FF7A4B.D06B9ED1-ON852575CC.00020EE8-852575CC.00075ECF@us.ibm.com>
Geoff, Nice use of the red herring defense. The whole point of this issue is to provide the client with a means of conveying its intent. Let's, instead, start with the following message as the child element of the Create: <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/strict"> <html> <head> <title>Hi, Mom!</title> </head> <body> <p>Hi, Mom!</p> </body> </html> </xsl:stylesheet> Presuming the service is an advanced piece of software that can process XSLT, but that was also designed to operate like a SVN service, should it run the stylesheet and store the generated XHTML as the representation? Or, should it instead simply store the stylesheet as the representation? This has been the crux of Doug's issue all along. The duality inherent in the fact that an instruction also has a representation. When does one treat it as an instruction and when as a representation? Only the sender can know its intent in this context, and it certainly isn't an arbitrary distinction. Doug would like to have the capacity to enable the client to assert how the content should be interpreted. That seems completely reasonable. You don't like the proposal; that much is clear. So much so, in fact, that you are willing to change the semantic of the submission specification in this case to avoid having to deal with the fact that the submission contains an ambiguity that requires attention. Yet, when it comes to the issue related to @Mode, you, and others from team WS-DD, claim that the semantics of the submission specification are sacrosanct and must be preserved at all cost or else the sky will fall, or some such dreadful happening. The cognitive dissonance is making my head hurt. Cheers, Christopher Ferris IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry Standards IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris phone: +1 508 234 2986 From: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> Date: 06/04/2009 07:56 PM Subject: RE: issue 6712: updated proposal Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org Hi Doug, So, if the client sends a representation that includes the element <priority>0</priority> and the value of zero is changed to the value of 3 by the service when the resource is created, is the representation the client sent over the “initial representation of the child resource” or not (i.e. should the flag be true or false)? Can’t we just forget about trying to make this arbitrary distinction between resource and instruction (and thus the need for this new attribute) and instead, as Bob suggested at the last call, just change the wording in Create to use the term “payload” instead of using the words “literal resource or instruction”? Regards, Geoff From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [ mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:23 PM To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org Subject: issue 6712: updated proposal Upon thinking about 6712, I don't think the flag to indicate that Body is the representation, or an instruction, needs to be anything more than a boolean. Clearly if its the data itself then the service will know what to do - just store it. If its an instruction then the QName of the Body element will convey the instruction's definition. So, my new proposal is the same as the old one but with the "Dialect" attribute changed to "isRepresentation". Proposal: Add a 'isRepresentation' attribute that explicitly tells the service whether or not the child of the Create element is the literal representation of the resource or an instruction. <wst:Create isRepresentation="xs:boolean"? ...> xs:any * </wst:Create> /wst:Create@isRepresentation This OPTIONAL attribute, when present and set to 'true', indicates that the child of this element is the initial representation of the new resource. When present and set to 'false' this attribute indicates that the child of this element is an instruction for how to create the new resource. The default value for this attribute is 'true'. thanks -Doug ______________________________________________________ STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 01:21:17 UTC