W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Some comments on 27 June 2003 Web Arch WD

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:54:18 -0700
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <034001c347dd$d5ca3810$fefb000a@beasys.com>


>
>
> On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 11:26, David Orchard wrote:
> > 1. We regularly use the phrase "on the web" in our document.
>
> True, but we seem to use the phrase in the ordinary English sense,
> relative to the term 'Web', which is defined, effectively, by
> the whole
> document.
>

I disagree as there are apparently different intepretations of what "on the
web" means.

> > 2. We have lots of other things in our document that we
> should cut if we
> > want to apply just that metric.
>
> Do we? For example?
>

How about most of 3.3.3?  There's not much that's constraining in there.
However, I like 3.3.3 because I don't use constraining as my only metric for
this document.  Readability, widespread appeal to an audience, etc. are
important additional metrics to simply defining
constraints/practices/principles.

> > 3. Common sense to me says that Web Arch v1.0 should define
> what on the web
> > means.
>
> To my satisfaction, it does. That is: the sum total of the document
> defines what we mean by 'Web' and ordinary English phrases built
> from it, such as 'on the Web'.
>

See #1 answer.  We define other verbs, like dereference, retrieve.  But not
"on", and there are important distinctions that can be made on what "on"
means.

> > 4. Other groups within the W3C, at least ws-arch and xmlp,
> use this phrase.
> > It would be good to have a normative definition so that I
> don't have to yet
> > again say what I think it means.
>
> Perhaps a pointer to such a discussion would help me understand what
> you're after.
>

SOAP 1.2 talks about soap resources "on the web"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#RPConWeb.
They make the assumption that HTTP POSTs are not "on the web".

Some people have then interpreted "not on the web" as being bad.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jun/0204.html.  I then
provide a rough definition of "on the web".
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jun/0207.html.

Another discussion has ensued, such as the relationship between the
availability of the resource and "on the web".
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0082.html

> >   Part of the reason for doing web arch is
> > so that we have consensus on what things mean, rather than
> single opinions
> > without any consensus opinion.
>
> Well, yes, of course. But I don't see what you're after that's
> different from what we've got.
>

Because the document doesn't differentiate between resources that are on the
web versus not on the web.

> > 5. I don't think this is huge scope creep that will cause
> us to slip our
> > schedule.
>
> As I see it, it's not a scope creep at all... the document
> adequately defines its terms as it is.
>

Then if I don't think it adequately defines how "on" relates to the other
related and better defined terms, particularly representations, resources,
and dereferencing, you shouldn't mind wanting clarification.

What is your definition of "on the web" then?  Is a HTML FORM POST resource
on the web or not?  Our doc doesn't say, so you and I might disagree.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 14:54:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:59 UTC