- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:29:39 -0800
- To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
I agree. BTW, I'd wanted an id: scheme for a while, so as to remove the notion of access methods from identity. But it turned out not to make a difference. Our definition of Web service specifies that it is identified by a URI - which therefore means it is a Resource. We could elaborate a bit and say that "A Web service is identified by a URI - and as such is a Resource - ...." > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Michael Mealling > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:05 PM > To: James M Snell > Cc: Mark Baker; David Orchard; 'Cutler, Roger ""(RogerCutler)'; > www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org > Subject: Re: Resource definition > > > > 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 18:32:22 UTC