- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:02:57 -0400
- To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFC30DC026.B27C8D16-ON85256D13.00669A62@torolab.ibm.com>
Amy, Thx. I think you correctly conveyed the intent of the proposal. I am personally a fan of URIs, but I don't think the WSD WG is in a position to dictate system architecture. The mission of the WG is to provide a technology that can be used to describe what people are doing. I think it is valid to design WSDL so that it is easy to describe Web services that conform to Web architecture, and possible to describe Web services that do not conform to Web architecture. That is why the proposal is to allow both xsd:anyURI and other domain specific complex types. If those complex types solve a real problem they will become standardized. If developers see the benefit of pure URI addressing then the complex types will fade away. The WSDL spec at a minimum should require WSDL processors to understand xsd:anyURI. Organizations like WS-I can define profiles that augment the addressing scheme with other complex types if there is a demand. As long as WSDL enables that, we have done our job. Arthur Ryman "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 04/25/2003 12:07 PM To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal for Describing Web Services that Refer to Other Web Services: R085 On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:53:04 -0400 Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > 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). This, though, is where I think we part company. While it is *possible* to design such schemes, it is not always practical. In particular, when other means already exist and are preferred, efforts to promote a URI-based syntax tend to stall, stagnate, and fail. *Can* be != is. Also != *should* be, in my opinion. > I think I also mentioned that every successful large scale distributed > system (that I've looked it anyhow, which is many) has this property. Depends on what you mean. If you mean that all successful large scale distributed systems use URIs for addressing, I do not agree. If you mean that they all use standardized addressing, it almost goes without saying. This discussion started from a question of whether WSDL addressing syntax ought to permit only URI, or ought to permit more complex address definition types. As Mike Champion pointed out, in order to work with stuff that currently exists, some of which cannot be identified by URI, provision ought to be made to permit more complex types. This was the point in Arthur Ryman's original proposal that I believe you originally objected to. I objected to your objection, on the grounds that while URI *might* one day be universal, at present it is not. Summary: to support services that are not URI-locatable, it should be possible to use more complex addressing syntax, rather than restricting address syntax to URI alone. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 15:03:11 UTC