- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:20:19 -0500
- To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
I understand your concern, and I'll also acknowledge that I probably
didn't do the best possible job of making the point I had in mind. I
really was thinking of use cases where the typical URI would wind up with
multiple parameters, and in which users would be mixing and matching those
parameters to create new URIs. So, if I want to get at the level for the
non-photo black ink in printer 3 on cluster 2, how are those parameters
expressed. Is there a canonical order for them, etc.? Is there a
standard description language that will enable an automated tool to help
be build URIs with the right combinations of parameters in the right
order, and appropriately represented in path segments and/or query
strings? I believe the WSDL 2.0 HTTP binding offers some facilities that
could be used, but it's still something of a challenge I think.
Anyway, I'll admit that if your comment had come in earlier I probably
would have done a more effective clarification. Given the limited time
available for submission, I mostly left things as they were, but I did
change the sentence:
"Indeed, use case 2 makes the point that the RESTful approach of assigning
a URI to every resource can be inconvenient, particularly when large
numbers of properties with parameterized names would each have to be
represented in its own URI. "
to
"Indeed, use case 2 makes the point that the RESTful approach of assigning
a URI to every resource can be inconvenient, particularly when large
numbers of properties with parameterized names would have to be
represented in URIs."
The following sentence remains the same is before:
"It's relatively easy to motivate giving the printer its own URI; it's
somewhat harder to decide whether to also assign a separate URI to each
paper drawer in the printer, to each part of the printer that can jam,
etc. Web Services does provide alternatives for addressing such very fine
grained resources. "
I hope that's at least a small step in the right direction. Sorry not to
more completely deal with the issue that you raised. I do appreciate the
comment.
Noah
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
01/09/2007 02:36 PM
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Draft of TAG Submission to W3C Workshop on Web
of Services for Enterprise Computing
Looks good. The only thing I found questionable was the assertion that
Indeed, use case 2 makes the point that the RESTful approach of
assigning a URI to every resource can be inconvenient, particularly when
large numbers of properties with parameterized names would each have to
be represented in its own URI. It's relatively easy to motivate giving
the printer its own URI; it's somewhat harder to decide whether to also
assign a separate URI to each paper drawer in the printer, to each part
of the printer that can jam, etc.
I don't find it hard at all. I do see a lot of systems that are crippled
by some needless stinginess with URIs. However, I see now reason we
can't have (for example)
http://laser1.example.com/drawers/1
http://laser1.example.com/trays/legal
http://laser1.example.com/trays/letter
http://laser1.example.com/toner
http://laser1.example.com/queue
http://laser1.example.com/queue/currentjob
etc. You could use query strings instead if you prefer. However,
especially int he case of a printer, where arbitrary files in arbitrary
locations are unlikely to be installed, it seems reasonable to make use
of the path part of the URL for addressing printer parts and features.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 17:40:40 UTC