- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:18:06 +0200
- To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
David, I agree there's a problem with the current definition ;-), but I'm not quite sure I agree with your revised definition :-( First, the definition should have read "a service represents" and not "an interface represents" (serious typo). Second, I have an issue with using "other resource", which gives the impression there are two resources. Next, I think your second sentence breaks the flow with the one that follows in the spec, namely: "A service can thus be seen as a collection of endpoints bound to the same resource." Finally, I'm not quite sure why we can't use "Web resource", which I think was Arthur's original proposal. Can't a Web resource be a "physical object or something abstract or conceptual"? To summaryze, I propose that we rewrite the whole paragraph as: <current> WSDL further considers that an interface represents (some of) the behavior of a resource on the World-Wide-Web. A service can thus be seen as a collection of endpoints bound to the same resource. </current> as follows: <proposed> WSDL further considers that a service may actually be providing access to a Web resource (note: a Web resource may be a physical object or something abstract or conceptual). A service can thus be seen as a collection of endpoints bound to the same resource. Multiple services may be related if they point to the same resource. </proposed> What do you think? Jean-Jacques. David Booth wrote: > > Oh, and along with that, the sentence just before Figure 1-1 states: > > "WSDL further considers that an interface represents (some of) the > behavior of a resource on the World-Wide-Web." > > I don't think that's accurate. For one thing, it is the _service_ > that is related to the resource (as explained in my previous message > below), and for another thing, that resource might not be on the Web. > > > I suggest rewording this as: > > "WSDL further considers that a service may actually be providing > access to some other resource[1], where this other resource may be a > physical object or something abstract or conceptual. Thus, multiple > services may be related by accessing the same resource. > > Comments?
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 12:17:59 UTC