Re: Draft wording for targetResource attribute

David,

I've fought on one telcon for the wording, whatever it ends up being, to
include the following explanation (not necessarily in the same words):

Different ports in two services with the same interface and the same
targetResource are interchangeable in the same sense as different ports
within one service with that interface and targetResource. I.e. from the
point of view of the ports, it doesn't really matter if I write

<service name="a" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
   <port name="x">...</port>
</service>
<service name="b" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
   <port name="y">...</port>
</service>

or

<service name="c" interface="i" targetResource="foo">
   <port name="x">...</port>
   <port name="y">...</port>
</service>   

It seemed to me that there was general agreement to this.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/






On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 21:19, David Booth wrote:
> The current draft wording on targetResource[1] says: "The targetResource 
> attribute information item identifies the resource that the service is a 
> representation of."
> 
> 1. This wording seems to be using the term "representation" in a way that 
> is different from the usage in the TAG's Web Architecture 
> document[2].  Wherever possible, I think we should be consistent with the 
> WebArch's use of terms.
> 
> 2. This wording also seems unnecessarily restrictive.  The targetResource 
> indicates a relationship between the WSDL service and some other 
> resource.  Although one good use of it is to indicate that two WSDL 
> services operate on the same physical object (such as a printer), it seems 
> to me that: (a) the exact nature of the relationship will always depend on 
> the semantics of the particular application or service that is defined; and 
> (b) there may be other legitimate uses that don't necessarily involve the 
> same physical object.  For this reason I think we are best off saying as 
> little as possible about it in our spec.
> 
> Accordingly, I propose changing the above wording to something like: "The 
> targetResource attribute information item identifies a resource that is 
> related to the service.  The nature of the relationship depends on the 
> semantics of the service."
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 1. WSDL 1.2 draft: 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html#Service_resource_attribute
> 
> 
> 2. TAG Web Arch: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#representations
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 08:02:28 UTC