- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:54:28 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:10:47AM -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote: > In the discussion with the architecture group today, there seemed to be > confusion between a service and the resource is acts on. The architecture > group defines a Web service to have something that has a URI, but that URI > is not the same as the resource that the Web service acts on. That's not true. A resource is anything with identity. Web services have identity, so are therefore resources. They may effect other resources, but that seems inconsequential. It is certainly the case that many Web services today, despite being resources, don't behave like them (i.e. they don't answer HTTP GET requests, as one example). But this need not be the case, since every Web service *could* answer a GET and serialize their current state into the response. So I'd caution that it shouldn't be assumed that a Web service is a Facade behind which resources live, which this seems to do. I don't understand the problem that @resource attempts to solve. Surely not all resources that a service effects needs to be listed in the WSDL?! Not only could the list be huge, it's not part of the interface, because it may vary depending upon the input message. Thanks. Oh, and in the banking example, a bank account is more likely to be the resource that's modified, rather than "the bank". But if, for example, a tranfer was initiated via a service, then both accounts would be effected resources. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 12:52:04 UTC