RE: New AFTF draft.

Seems to me it should be a representation rather than a resource.  Even
though the representation might be identified by a URI (and so be confused
with a Resource).  The web architecture is pretty clear that resources are
hidden by servers.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:04 AM
> To: Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Carine Bournez; Herve Ruellan;
> xml-dist-app@w3.org; Yves Lafon
> Subject: Re: New AFTF draft.
>
>
>
> They're not resources, but representations of resources?
> Personally, I think part reads better than resource in this context.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> > Well, there's 'resource' which fits in nicely with the Web
> architecture.
> >
> > e.g.
> >         "Compound SOAP structure
> >          A compound SOAP structure consists of a primary
> SOAP message part
> >          and zero or more related resources."
> >
> > I would even go as far as to add: "identified by a URI".
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 09:47:54 UTC