- From: Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:04:08 -0800
- To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Cc: "www-talk@w3.org" <www-talk@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <60c552b80901121004x599b3f75qa5192d0b8bf74a31@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>wrote: > Well, it is really Resource Descriptor Discovery… > > Yep. > > > I didn't come up with Service Discovery… we're kinda stuck with it. I am > happy to position the comparison between Service Discovery and Descriptor > Discovery if that makes thing clearer. > I think it would. Like I said, it's not a big deal, though. Dirk. > EHL > > > > *From:* Dirk Balfanz [mailto:balfanz@google.com] > *Sent:* Friday, January 09, 2009 3:45 PM > *To:* Eran Hammer-Lahav > *Cc:* www-talk@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Discovery spec draft published > > > > Hi Eran, > > thanks for putting this together. I might have more comments in the future, > but I wanted to let you know the first hiccup I encountered when reading the > document. I don't think it's a big deal, but maybe something to think about. > > > The terms "service discovery" and "resource discovery" are not consistently > formed: In the term "service discovery" (in Section 4), "service" is the > thing that falls out of the process of doing the discovering. In the term > "resource discovery", "resource" is the thing that is input into the process > of doing the discovering - what falls out of it are the resource's > attributes. > > To be more consistent, they should be called "service discovery" and > "attribute discovery", or "attribute discovery" and "resource discovery". > The former would call out the things falling out of the process of > discovery, while the latter calls out the things that discovery is performed > on. > > I would argue that the former would be the more natural way to name things > (would you describe the Klondike gold rush as "gold discovery" or "Yukon > discovery" - I would argue it's "gold discovery"), which means your document > is about "attribute discovery" (those attributes being listed in a "resource > descriptor"), not "resource discovery". > > What do you think? > > Dirk. > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> > wrote: > > This is the new discovery workflow proposed to replace Yadis. Feedback is > welcomed on the www-talk@w3.org list or directly to me. > > Thanks, > > EHL > > --- > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : HTTP-based Resource Descriptor Discovery > Author(s) : E. Hammer-Lahav > Filename : draft-hammer-discovery-00.txt > Pages : 27 > Date : 2009-01-09 > > This memo describes an HTTP-based process for obtaining information > about a resource identified by a URI. The 'information about a > resource' - a resource descriptor - typically provides machine- > readable information that aims to assist and enhance the interaction > with the resource. This memo only defines the process for locating > and obtaining the descriptor, but leaves the descriptor format and > its interpretation out of scope. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hammer-discovery-00.txt > > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > >
Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 18:04:46 UTC