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

> That's not my reading of the working draft. My understanding is that the
WSD proposal is for a "service" to have an attribute that points to a URI.
This URI identifies something other than the "service" itself. Also I
thought that everybody pretty much agrees that an agent is different than a
WSD service.

That discussion aborted, unfortunately.  I remember proposing some text
to fix the problem of equating agents with services, but got no response to
it whatsoever.

>
> >So, I think that addressed Ugo's concern: the agent *is* the WSDL
> >targetResource, and had a URI.  All sorts of resources *could* exist
behind
> >the agent, but all a Web service requester sees is the agent.
>
> My understanding of an agent is that it is a piece of code. Again, if I
replace that piece of code with another because of any reason, do I get a
different URI? And why should the service care (assuming the semantics
remain the same)?

I suppose this question is to Mike, but allow me to answer out of sheer
fascination.  NO!  Implementations are, by design, at least one level of
indirection away from resources.  The URI binds to the meaning, not to
the code.

Walden