Re: Review of Authoritative Metadata

On Mar 27, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Rice, Ed (ProCurve) wrote:
> Yes, however, the WSDL is used in discovery as well.  So the web  
> service
> and the description can be 'discovered' which then points to the
> existing web service.

I don't see how that differs from looking at HTML anchors and img
elements to discover Web resources.  The context and content of the next
request may change (e.g., the HTTP Accept headers will differ based
on why the HTML engine is making the request).  Nevertheless, each
request is self-descriptive and independent of the prior context.
The previous discovery action influences the next request, but
doesn't define it.

>> If the SOAP message is well-formed but incorrect, then the fact  
>> that the message
>> references the WSDL allows the processor to determine that the  
>> message is incorrect.  It does not change the meaning of the  
>> message.  This would be in contrast to a SOAP message
>> that doesn't reference the WSDL at all -- the request may succeed  
>> or fail, but the message
>> is assumed correct because there is nothing (aside from the SOAP  
>> messaging format) to
>> measure its correctness against.
> Ah, but isn't that my point?  If the 'message is incorrect' based  
> on the
> WSDL, but looking just as the xml document itself it looks ok.. Then
> your making an external file the authority to determine if its correct
> or not?  Doesn't that go against section 3?

No, because "determining if it is correct" is not related to the bit
that is authoritative: determining what it claims to be.  What the
message claims to be may be wrong.  Nevertheless, if the message claims
to be one thing and isn't actually that thing, then the message is
deemed incorrect.  If the message were not authoritative in stating
what it means, then processors would be compelled to run the request
just in case the result might have its own idea of what is correct.
What the message claimed would therefore not be relevant at all.

>> In any case, SOAP messaging has no connection to the Web, AFAICT,  
>> and certainly doesn't
>> adhere to Web architecture, so I have a hard time caring whether  
>> or not it fits the
>> finding (even when it does).
> Interesting.. So web services have nothing to do with the web? Does  
> that
> mean the XML Protocol Working Group is not subject to the TAG  
> then?  ;)

The XML Protocol Working group has never been subject to the TAG.
TAG recommendations are heartily disregarded by most of XML services,
and the fact that XML is completely unsuitable for a network protocol
isn't going to stop them either.

The W3C works on what the W3C members want to work on.

> Seriously, I think the web is more than just HTML and since the TAG is
> also being asked questions on things like XML versioning, semantic  
> web,
> privacy, mobility etc.. We should either include them in our  
> discussion
> or explicitly exclude them from the finding.

I think the Web is the interconnected set of resources and the
technologies that make that possible.  SOAP is neither interconnected
nor enabling of connectedness -- in fact, it is actively destructive.
If people want to build IIOP with angle brackets, that's fine, but it
shouldn't mean we need to water down the architecture to be inclusive.


Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 23:08:27 UTC