RE: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (l ong) )

Hi Jacek,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky []
> Sent: 31 January 2002 11:12
>  Stuart,
>  simply adding another uriRef element named faultNode would be 
> easy, but I think you wouldn't get away with just saying "it's an 
> identifier of a node" and you'd be hunted by questions like:
>  Is that the address of the node?

No... its an identifier that identifies the node. 

Do you regard a domain name as a name or an address?

> How about nodes with multiple addresses, which is that? 

Could be one of many identifiers that identify a node? 

>  Why is this not used anywhere else?

This this I take to be 'node identity'. The SOAP 1.2 WDs uses the term SOAP
Node quite alot, it has a glossary entry and even a subsesction part 1
section 2.1 all to itself! Are you suggesting that SOAP Nodes do not have

> Why cannot you target at a node rather than at a role?

Well that's a good question. The way I would perhaps square this is that I
can play many roles, some of which may be taken on or duplicated by others
playing the same role. However, there are some roles (like father of my
children [grounded of course in the unique identity of my children]) that
have the potential to uniquely identify me.

So... with respect to any SOAP Node one could always regard the role of
being that SOAP Node as role that would distinguish the node from any

> What is the relationship between a node and a role anyway?

Try Part 1 section 2.2 "SOAP Actors and SOAP Nodes" [1].

>  I think that even though more complicated, modeling it as an
> extension would be much cleaner because of avoiding all that node
> stuff in the core.

I think the node stuff is in the core. The terms SOAP Node occurs

>  Additionally, adding faultNode would IMHO _not_ be consistent
> with faultActor because actor is a known and used and well
> defined term, whereas node was so far only an abstract term.

I think the term SOAP Node is no less well-defined than SOAP actor, and
indeed the definition of actor relies upon the definition of SOAP Node... so
which is more fundemental?

>  For these reasons I would initially oppose to the WG discussing
> this addition. But then, the discussion has already started as 
> this dialog. 8-)

I'd be happy to drop the topic (or go off-line), I have no particular wish
to fill folks in-trays with this. As I said at the start have no particular
intent to push this hard - you just had an ambition to see me more satisfied

>  Kind regards,
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)



Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 07:27:51 UTC