- From: Michael Mealling <michael@verisignlabs.com>
- Date: 18 Feb 2003 18:05:08 -0500
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Cutler, Roger \"\"(RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 17:47, James M Snell wrote: > Hmmm.. the assertion that "All Web services have identity, and are > therefore resources" doesn't seem right to this lurking observer. I view > "Web Services" as one way of getting to a resource, not as the resource > itself... > > A Resource has an identity and a collection of mechanisms a resource > consumer can use to get at that resource. Web services are just one of > those mechanisms. > > I believe my disconnect here is purely a matter of semantics so perhaps > you could ellaborate a bit more. What am I missing? You're making the assumption that the access methods are external to the resource when they are actually part of it (depending on the URI scheme you're using of course). If you use an http URI for some resource you are making the statement that the Resource being identified has the semantics that the 'http:' scheme gives it, which include things like methods 'n such. But its still an abstract concept you're identifying. A web service can just as easily be a Resource as anything else can be. A Resource can be _anything_ with identity: that includes cars, people, cats, services, emotions, galaxies, atoms, collections of bits sitting on a hard drive, nothing, everything, randomness, etc. If any of those things become Resources once someone bind a URI to that concept then why can't a Web Service be one as well? Since when did a Web Service become some extra-universal uber concept higher than any other concept? -MM
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 18:09:19 UTC