Re: Fwd: RE: EDI and Security Text

Hi David.

Just a couple of comments:

* David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> [2004-01-07 15:15-0500]
[..]
> >>I've added another paragraph:
> >>
> >>"This is not to say that Web services tracking <emph>must</emph> be
> >>done
> >>
> >>using URIs in this way.  Indeed, there are other ways tracking can be
> >>performed, and any engineering design must take many factors into
> >>consideration.  Rather, the point is to illuminate the fact that,
> >>because Web services architecture is based on Web architecture, Web
> >>services have
> >>the <emph>possibility</emph> of taking advantage of this use of URIs."
> >>
> >>Does that address your concerns?

FWIW, I think that it's a good thing to recommend URIs. I am not sure
that this paragraph is necessary since the text is introduced as an
example.

Also, instead of "As a simple example, suppose ...", I would say "To
illustrate their benefit, suppose ...".

[..]
> >> >[[
> >> >Furthermore, a URI can be clickable: If the URI also represents the
> >> >location of a document (or a dynamic query into a database), it could
> >
> >> >act as a convenient link for determining the status or history of
> >> >that transaction, provided the user is authorized to access such
> >>information.
> >> >
> >> >(Security mechanisms will need to ensure that a tracking URI cannot
> >> >be dereferenced without proper authority and privacy controls, but
> >> >the use
> >>
> >> >of URIs is largely orthogonal to this requirement.)
> >> >]]

Instead of "clickable", I would use dereferencable, which is the term
used by the Web architecture document.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/