Re: Proposal for Describing Web Services that Refer to Other Web Services: R085

Look, I was *agreeing* with Amelia; there exist lots of services whose
identifiers do not contain sufficient information to interact with the
service.

But for *all* of those systems, it is possible to design a URI scheme
(perhaps more than one) such that all the necessary information *is*
contained in the URIs (either by value or by reference to a standard, as
I mentioned).

I think I also mentioned that every successful large scale distributed
system (that I've looked it anyhow, which is many) has this property.
Consider the telephone system.  I only need an identifier (phone number)
and a client (phone), and I can call someone.  Web services, by using
http: URIs, but not HTTP's application interface (GET/PUT/POST/etc..),
do not have this property.

Oh, and just for clarity in case people were confused by Mike's comment,
I don't represent the W3C.

MB

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:37:47AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> +++1  W3C can't just sit back and pontificate about how much better the
> world would be if everyone "grokked" the URI-Resource-Representation
> paradigm and did the Right Thing.  Even if we all agreed that the world
> would be better off!  
> 
> Perhaps WSA or the TAG could make the argument that over the long term other
> protocols SHOULD define URI schemes along the lines of what Mark was
> suggesting, but WSDL 1.2 MUST be accomodating itself to today's realities
> rather than asking other organizations to accomodate W3C's vision.

-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis

Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 11:51:13 UTC