- From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:22:15 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Mark and others fishing in the pond ... On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:08 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:45:49PM -0800, Francis McCabe wrote: >> This is a revised resource model diagram. >> >> I have removed the confusing service model aspect of discovery, and >> added in agents using discovery services to discover resources. > > I wouldn't think that a resource model needs a separate discovery > service. Representations facilitate discovery. Discovery is an essential aspect of resources. Representations can be *used* (under some circumstances) to facilitate discovery, but its a category error to assert that representations are the means of discovering a resource. (Consider a picture of Dan's infamous car) > > In general, I'd prefer the removal of service, discovery service, and > resource description for similar reasons. If the group wants to > describe how resources relate to services, you'd need to introduce > a "Web server" into the diagram I think. But all resource descriptions > are representation, and all representations are resource descriptions. > >> It does >> not seem to be necessary to add publishing, but I am open to that. > > If the group wants to go there, I'd suggest saying that an agent can > publish a representation (a Web server could too, depending upon your > definition of "publish"). > >> I have added in that resources may have representations. I realize >> that >> services may not have useful representations, but other resources do. > > Though I'd prefer service not be mentioned, all resources - even > services - have useful representations. Mike has commented on this. Its not obvious that a representation of a service has much utility. > >> I have also tied in a resource's URI to the resource description: >> i.e., >> its not a description of the resource if it does not identify it. This >> is potentially controversial - it disallows descriptions of the form: >> all resources which are colored red. > > As above, I don't see the need to distinguish between resource > description and representation. descriptions and representations are quite different. A description is a meta-statement and a representation is, if anything, an object-level (as opposed to meta-level) copy of the resource. > >> A person who owns a resource also set policy on it. That policy may be >> linked to from the description. Again, there may be others who *also* >> set policies on resources (the hosting agency for example). > > I'll have to think more about that one ... > > BTW, I'd also suggest that the agent discovers the URI rather than the > resource. No, the agent is discovering the resource. That is what it is interested in. The URI is but a means to an end. Frank
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 12:58:39 UTC