- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:51:23 -0400
- To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:20:47AM -0400, Christopher B Ferris wrote: > I should have qualified 'nonsense'. I was specifically referring to SOAP > which > you included in your pronouncement that I found to be absurd. I didn't mention SOAP, because I thought it obvious that it could not do this. Whether you get back "33" or the equivalent wrapped in a SOAP envelope, you don't know its type (namespace != type). Sure, you could put more information in the envelope to describe the type, or make other assertions about how temperature values relate to other things, but SOAP doesn't do that. Neither does WSDL. RDF on the other hand, is a standard model for doing *exactly* that. > My point remains. SOAP can be used to express the state of a resource > and > WSDL can > be used at design time to prepare the software to receive that state (a > priori knowledge > if you will). How about this; SOAP, like HTTP, can be used to *transfer* a representation of the state of a resource, but neither have anything to say about *how* the state is represented. Does that help? > Sometimes, a priori knowledge is a "good thing". Sometimes, sure. In a single address space on a single machine, it's wonderful. On an Intranet, it's "workable". But on the Internet, it's a complete non-starter, because coordinating the deployment of new a priori knowledge over multiple administrative domains is *VERY* expensive. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 10:50:41 UTC