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

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

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 02:22:56 -0400
To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <010b01c3202a$96af6c20$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

> That's good because it gives you the level of flexibility you want. So 
> let's say the resource URI is just some UUID with no meaning of 
> reference to anything physical (or even logical).

Whoa!  There's got to be *some* meaning there.  Afterall,
it's an identifier, isn't it?

 >But I can still say a 
> lot of things about it. I can have some specification about the 
> capability of that printer. I can reference it from different places in 
> the directory, whether because I was looking for a PostScript printer, 
> or some printer on my floor, or a 20ppm+ printer.

(You were talking about a URI, and then all of a sudden, the
antecedent of "it" became the printer.  Did you notice that?)

> In the case would it be fair to say that this is nothing than some 
> common name that correlates multiple service definitions together? 
> Something like a service set.

Are you saying that when you stick certain groups of services
together into natural, logical bundles, they take on a sort of
meaningful identity, and you'd like to be able to name that so
you can refer to it over and over and use it?

> An alternative would be to have some collection element to do that, for 
> example:
> <serviceSet name="uri">
>   <service/> +
> </serviceSet>

Looks quite interesting.....

> But that would require the serviceSet to be rewritten each time a new 
> service is added. So I would definitely prefer to see some common name 
> used in independent service definition that ties them together, assuming 
> anything I said so far makes any sense ;-)

Er, you still have the problem of tying and re-tying in response to
changes, so you're no better off.   Maybe there's another way....

> I'm going to duck and run for cover, hoping that someone would pick a 
> different name or better clarify it before we end up swimming in another 
> trout pond ;-)

You may prefer a duck pond. :-)

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 02:21:27 UTC

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