- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:21:59 -0400
- To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, jones@research.att.com
- Cc: dmh@contivo.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org
+1 MEPs are important enough to identify, and WSDL 1.2 does identify each MEP with a URI. At 06:47 PM 7/1/2003 +0200, Hugo Haas wrote: >* jones@research.att.com <jones@research.att.com> [2003-06-27 14:46-0400] > > Still to be discussed: > > * If a MEP does not have an identifier, is it still a mep? > > I think so and therefor suggest "may have" > instead of "has" > > > > I'd be happier with "should" if we are going to weaken it. Having an > > identifier (URI) allows the world to talk about it -- and there is > > plenty that one needs to say about MEPs. > >The definition of an MEP is something important that one is likely to >want to refer to, and therefore that we want to make sure we can >identify, as per AR009.3. > >To me, an MEP which doesn't have an identifier is an MEP which is >being observed but hasn't been defined: an example would be that I >sent a message to a service, and I am waiting to see what I am going >to get back, and infer that the combination of my message and what I >got back (0, 1, 15 messages) constitutes the MEP for the instantiation >of a service. My feeling is that it is the kind of thing that we don't >want to talk about in our architecture, since we want to talk about >describable concepts. > >Therefore, "has" looks good to me. > >Regards, > >Hugo > >-- >Hugo Haas - W3C >mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 16:22:08 UTC