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

Re: targetResource wording

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:46:54 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030619204654.I30095@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi David,

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:14:02PM -0400, David Booth wrote:
> Does this vagueness present a problem?  No.  Different applications will 
> know what they wish to do with this.  (The canonical example is a 
> printDocument service s1 and a managePrinter service s2, both manipulating 
> the same physical printer r.)  The reason the WG described the 
> targetResource as "manipulating" the same resource was to give users 
> guidance about its intended use, even though the precise meaning of the 
> word "manipulate" is impossible to nail down in this context.

From Sanjiva and Mike, I understood that the attribute identified a
"chunk of software" (my words), and the model that supports seems to
meet the requirements of the WG, and is something even I can understand!

Where it gets really confusing for me is when words like "resource" and
"manipulation" are used, as you do there, because that suggests that
we're talking about the actual resource(s?) which are manipulated at
runtime behind the service.  So rather than "a chunk of software in
the printer", I get the impression that you're saying that the URI
identifies "the printer", and IMO, targetResource has nothing to do with
that; there could be many chunks of software implementing those
interfaces within (or on behalf of) the printer, different software
could be installed, etc.. all the while, the identity and URI of the
printer remain the same.
> Regarding the name "targetResource", u does identify a resource, so the 
> "Resource" part of the name definitely is appropriate.

I strongly disagree.  By that measure, everything which accepts a URI
as an argument should be called "resource".

I believe it is the converse that determines whether the word "resource"
is appropriate; that only if the valid values are identifiers which can
identify any resource, should it be used.

> I hope this helps to clarify the situation.

Me too.

Can I recommend followups to www-ws@w3.org?  I know I've said all
I need to say to the WG.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 20:42:19 UTC

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