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

RE: Separate concepts for "service" and "targetResource?" (was RE : /service/@targetResource ?)

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 17:09:49 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405B81C45@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:47 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Separate concepts for "service" and 
> "targetResource?" (was
> RE : /service/@targetResource ?)
> Or the URI is just a name and the "printer 
> service" directory has an association between buildings and floors to 
> printers (and hopefully also knows which floor I'm on). But 
> then, could 
> that directory just reference the service by it's QName?

This is what I have in mind.  WSA would not, of course, specify all the
properties associated with a targetResource, just assert that a discovery
service could maintain such an association.

> So trying to understand the value proposition of 
> targetResource and best 
> practice, it seems to me that it tries to solve a very 
> specific problem: 
> how to define multiple <service> definitions that are independently 
> managed, yet all relate to the same service 
> agent/provider/resource. 

Yup.  That's the scenario we discussed in Rennes.  Think of a WSDL service
that has a "print job interface" and another service that has a "management
interface".  Both may be bound to the same physical printer, or not.  

> I see the value in associating them all to the same entity, but 
> would it 
> not make more sense to pick a more applicable term, perhaps agent or 
> provider?

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 17:09:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:52 UTC