- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:56:32 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Feb 14, 2004, at 10:54 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 05:20:32PM -0800, David Orchard wrote: >> I strongly disagree that there isn't experience in the web >> architecture wrt >> "safe" operations. In fact, I'd argue that the web architecture is >> completely dependent upon GET being "safe". > > Yup. The Web wouldn't work at all if GET could not be assumed safe. I would be much happier if we didn't perpetuate the misreading of my message that I said we didn't have experience with safe operations. I said we didn't have experience *to my knowledge* of *describing* safe operations in WSDL. Or perhaps clearer, in marking arbitrary WSDL operations as safe and then doing stuff with them. I actually *do* have some experience with an *analgous* virtue, "being information gathering only" at the DAML-S/OWL-S level (and how it effects *when* you execute a service, i.e., at plan time or only at run time), and it's tricky. That work, also, doesn't at all deal with web infrastructure issues (like caching by intermediaries). So I am hesitant to offer it up as background for this sort of standardization. So, I find adding safety annotations interesting, but that the case for including it in WSDL2.0 is unclear. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2004 07:56:34 UTC