W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

RE: REST, uniformity and semantics

From: Thompson, Bryan B. <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:28:44 -0400
Message-Id: <D24D16A6707B0A4B9EF084299CE99B390195B404@mcl-its-exs02.mail.saic.com>
To: "'Champion, Mike '" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>, "''Mark Baker ' '" <distobj@acm.org>, "''www-ws-arch@w3.org ' '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>


With reference to the working draft of the WSA requirements document, AG003
provides that the WSA MUST be consistent with the current and future
evolution of the WWWW and AC011 reads "is consistent with the architectural
principles and design goals of the existing web."

With respect to my understanding of the history of the web, REST is
an architectural analysis that is integral to those architectural
principles and design goals.  The TAG also states "Understand REST" as a
"Good Practice" in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/.

With respect to the draft architecture document, I thought that the
distinction suggested between "distributed object systems" and "direct
manipulation resources" highlighted very nicely two different facets of
current architectural styles for distributed systems.



-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike
To: 'Mark Baker '; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
Sent: 5/16/2003 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: REST, uniformity and semantics

Oh, I see the ambiguity in my response.  Basically, I'm saying that the
TAG's Webarch document is our normative input vis a vis the constraints
the Web architecture that WSA must "align" with.  Fielding's thesis, or
anyone else's interpretation of which "web" constraints should apply to
are *informative* inputs *only* once they are in the Webarch document.  

This may or may not be relevant to this thread; perhaps I was
over-interpreting Walden's "(For those who didn't recognize it, #2 is
one of
the REST constraints.)"  I replied because I want to make very clear
that I
do not consider the "REST constraints" as being relevant to this WG
a) we decide that they are; or b) the TAG puts them in the Webarch
and asserts that they apply to Web services [and it's not at all clear
to me
that the TAG wants to grasp the nettle of Web services!]. 

I invite people read the soon-to-be published WSA working draft and
any Webarch issues one thinks are in it, but we do NOT invite issues
concerning WSA's non-conformance with non-normative constraints on it. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Sent: 5/16/2003 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: REST, uniformity and semantics

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:12:54AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> As I may have pointed out before :-) Mark's interpretation of Dr.
> thesis is not a normative input into this WG.

What are you referring to there, Mike?
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 10:32:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:51 UTC