- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 11:44:37 -0500
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 10:05 AM > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: Issue 5 and "webarch" > > > With respect to URIs, isn't it true that namespace URIs can > qualify multiple resources? Of do I misunderstand namespaces? That's kindof what I was getting at: URIs can be used to identify abstract "resources" or a whole collection of related things in a "namespace". That's a Good Thing in that it makes URIs a universal space of unique identifiers. Thus, one could use URIs to identify web service resources that are not "on the Web" in the conventional sense, e.g. http://t-rex.example.com/accounting might identify a mainframe acounting program on a mainframe called T-Rex for the purposes of describing what it does, what its web service interfaces are, reasoning about it with RDF, or whatever. That's something that I suspect that the TAG and the WS working groups can probably agree on. What I seem to disagree with Mark on is whether that implies that one can assume that these URIs are always useful in a hypermedia sense. He gives an example (which I've tweaked for my rhetorical purposes): <some-doc> ... <invoice>249827348237432</invoice> ... </some-doc> versus <some-doc> ... <invoice>http://bronto.example.com/9238d928jd298sdfi9</invoice> ... </some-doc> Let's say that the T-Rex accounting system has to access this invoice (which let's assume is physically on another mainframe Bronto at a remote site. Mark seems to be suggesting that it dereference http://bronto.example.com/9238d928jd298sdfi9 and get the data. That assumes that the accounting system (first deployed in 1975, let's say) understands HTTP, and is connected to the internet (which for some odd reason mainframe sysadmins tend to be paranoid about). In the current world, let's say that T-Rex communicates with Bronto via a proprietary MOM (that provides reliabile messaging, security,etc.), and 249827348237432 is the primary key of the invoice of interest in some database. In this type of scenario, it makes a lot more sense for the SOAP client to gather up all the data that the back-end system needs, pass it through the HTTP/SOAP gateway, and let the back end do what it was built to do, than to rebuild all that back office stuff with Web technology and model the interactions with hypermedia. I'm suggesting (well, insisting!) that the Web services architecture reflect this reality as well as the scenario in which all these exchanges are done with HTTP over the Web per se.
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 11:44:40 UTC