W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2005

RE: LC54 Proposal

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:46:05 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0F13F1C2@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I *hope* I'm not re-opening the target resource debate as I think this
is quite simpler, but it is service compatibility that I want from my
proposal.  I don't think this is at all the same as target resource
because target resource attempted to make some specification about the
resource behind the service, and thence one could infer some
compatibility guarantees from service/targetresource pairs.  

My proposal avoids that problem by making the assertion much simpler,
which is that a particular service can be used by a client as if it was
another service.  

The relationship is between services, rather than services &
targetResource.  Further, target resource brought in a bunch more


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:45 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: WS-Description WG
> Subject: RE: LC54 Proposal
> > > BTW, what happened to the original intention (caught in the issue)
> > > indicating compatibility on interfaces as opposed to services? If
> > > want to go in this direction, wouldn't starting at interface be
> > cleaner?
> > >
> >
> > I think the group ended up saying that an interface extension is a
> > compatible extension.
> David, isn't this enough for the purposes of LC54?
> There may be two kinds of compatibility here, only one caught in LC54
> it stands now:
> Interface compatibility, what I would call the compatibility of intent
> or function, which apparently is guaranteed for operations of
> that are being extended by other interfaces.
> Service compatibility, similar to target resource (R.I.P.) which says:
> "if you call this common operation on either of these services, it's
> going to do the same thing in the same place". The same seems to be
> intent of endpoint compatibility.
> If service compatibility is not what you want, interface compatibility
> should suffice for your purposes, because if two services don't share
> interface, information about their compatibility will be useless to
> automated tools anyway.
> If, on the other hand, you do want service compatibility, it seems to
> you're reopening the target resource debate.
> Please clarify, which is it you want? 8-)
> Best regards,
> Jacek
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2005 18:46:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:49 UTC