W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2003

RE: targetResource wording

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:38:19 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405E4A066@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 12:04 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: targetResource wording

> Sanjiva just said that it identified a chunk of software ,,,

> From where I'm sitting, Sanjiva's definition seems to make the most
> sense. 

I agree ... 

> So in that case, we're back to naming; while it's 
> true that the
> chunk of software is a resource, it is *not* true that all resources
> are chunks of software.  Therefore the attribute should not be called
> "targetResource", as that name suggests that any resource 
> identifier can
> be a valid value.  How about just "target"?

OK, I see the point now.  As I understood the discussion in Rennes, the idea
was to make explicit reference to the Webarch -- a WSDL "targetThingie" is a
unique concept, service, or physical thing, it uses a URI to identify it, it
is on the Web, so the term "resource" fits the bill. 

Not every resource identifier is a reasonable value for a WSDL
targetResource, but there is a fairly broad range of URIs that make sense,
so leveraging the TAG's definition *with the qualifier* that it is a "WSDL
target" resource makes perfect sense to me.  There's enough substantive
disagreement over this concept and whether it is valuable to WSDL  that I
don't think worrying about the finer points of terminology is productive at
the moment. 
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 08:38:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:30 UTC