Re: targetResource wording

Thus quoth Anne Thomas Manes (~ 20-Jun-03 11:20 AM ~)...
> But can't a piece of software that executes a process be a resource?
> Going back to Savas's question -- does the targetResource represent a
> specific printer or a printing service that can assign the print job to one
> of a set of printers? I would expect that it could be either, at the
> determination of the person that supplies the resource. I can think of a
> host of use cases where the whole point of the service is to encapsulate a
> set of resources behind a single process.
> 
> Anne
+1

Using the 'royal we', *we* cannot know such things.  These are matters 
of policy, decisions to be made be enterprises which provide such 
services to their community.

*We* provide *mechanism* that enables such a resource, whatever that may 
be, to be unambiguously identified.  This mechanism allows the community 
of users to associate operations (in this case) with their 
community-identifed resource, whatever that may be.

IMHO...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
> To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
> Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>;
> <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: targetResource wording
> 
> 
> 
>>+1
>>
>>Christopher Ferris
>>STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
>>email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
>>phone: +1 508 234 3624
>>
>>www-ws-desc-request@w3.org wrote on 06/20/2003 12:50:24 PM:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>At 08:46 PM 6/19/2003 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From Sanjiva and Mike, I understood that the [targetResource]
>>
>>attribute
>>
>>>>identified a "chunk of software" (my words),
>>>
>>>Some of the earlier postings may have used language or examples that
>>
>>gave
>>
>>>that impression, but it's incorrect.  The resource it identifies *could*
>>
>>be
>>
>>>a chunk of software, but it's entirely up to the (application-defined)
>>>semantics of those particular WSDL descriptions.  WSDL 1.2 has nothing
>>
>>to
>>
>>>say about whether that resource is or is not a chunk of software.  And
>>
>>in
>>
>>>the printer example, it probably would *not* be.
>>>
>>>
>>>>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",
>>>
>>>Yes, in the printer example it would probably represent "the printer" --
>>
>>>not a "chunk of software".
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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 think what you're saying here is that just because URI u exists, that
>>>does not magically cause a corresponding resource r to exist.  That is
>>>correct.  However, the "targetResource='u'" is *asserting* that such a
>>>resource exists.  The assertion could be false, but that's what it is
>>>asserting.  It is analogous to the fact that a WSDL document is
>>
>>*asserting*
>>
>>>that a corresponding service exists.  It might not, but that's what the
>>>WSDL document is asserting.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>David Booth
>>>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>>>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.

mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com
tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301

Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 14:58:46 UTC