W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2002

Re: New AFTF draft.

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:10:38 -0400
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Carine Bournez'" <carine@w3.org>, "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'Herve Ruellan'" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Message-Id: <A16C7F04-C598-11D6-BD18-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Wednesday, Sep 11, 2002, at 10:35 US/Eastern, 
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Right but this is at least potentially a case where the resource is
> traveling in the message.  There is no server for this resource at the
> moment.  Its URI typically based on, indeed perhaps explicitly relative
> to, a URI that identifies the message itself as the message travels
> through space.  There is no server.  Not all resources live on 
> servers; we
> only know that they are accessible, or at least identified by URI, as
> these are.
I guess it depends on where you draw the line in deciding what 
constitutes a server. For example, in the scenario you outlined in 
response to my suggestion that the AF draft should define and require 
support for at least one URI scheme for identifying attachments you 

> * Receiving application encounters URIs, probably initially in the
> envelope, but maybe in other parts as processing proceeds.  Possible
> implementation is that SOAP software (with knowledge of the binding)
> offers a service that returns the byte stream for the part when 
> presented
> with a URI.
In that case the service above could be thought of as a server that 
supports GET semantics. It could even provide support for content 
negotiation if that was desired.


> "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 09/11/2002 09:44 AM
>         To:     "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, 
> "'Christopher B Ferris'"
> <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
>         cc:     "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, 
> "'Carine Bournez'"
> <carine@w3.org>, "'Herve Ruellan'" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>,
> <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        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".
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 11:11:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:52 UTC