- 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