Re: combined proposal for issues 8180, 8299, and 8302

I like the flow of this much better.  One thing we need to tweak though: 
the <wst:Representation> element needs to be optional since not all 
Dialects will use it.  So, aside from adding a "?" to the schema, we'll 
need to modify the wording too.

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.



Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
01/27/2010 02:29 AM

To
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
cc

Subject
combined proposal for issues 8180, 8299, and 8302






To summarize the positions on the basic issues:

8180:
Yes, resource representations can be "empty", i.e. "have no value". Empty 
resources are created by supplying a <wst:Representation/> in Create. The 
existence of an empty resource is indicated by a Get that returns a 
<wst:Representation/>. Resources can be "made empty (i.e. have their 
representation removed) by Put-ing a <wst:Representation/>.
8299:
The ambiguity between representation and extensions has been removed by 
the introduction of the wst:Representation element. The XML element inside 
a wst:Representation is the representation. Anything outside the 
wst:Representation element (and in a different namespace that WS-T) is an 
extension. This is described without complicated language on the 
optionality of representation etc.
8302:
I believe this is significantly clearer and more straightforward than 
previous versions. The use of the "implicit Get" operation is described in 
straightforward way that allows for it to be used in a multitude of 
situations but does not require services to perform onerous tasks such as 
transmitting very large messages in response to very large requests.
- gp[attachment "wst-8180-8299-8302.zip" deleted by Doug 
Davis/Raleigh/IBM]