- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:09:10 +0200
- To: "John J. Barton" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- CC: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "'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>
Well, my understanding is that HTTP GET+URI returns a representation of the resource at that URI; resources don't travel. The analogy here is that the SOAP processor also retrieves a representation of the resource via its URI. That representation is precomputed and part of the message. Jean-Jacques. John J. Barton wrote: > > From the perspective of the SOAP module the attachments are > resources. That is why we use URIs to name them. > > From the perspective of the packaging module the attachments > are representations. It deals with bytes. > > The confusing concept from the Web point of view is "Compound > SOAP structure". This programming construct cannot be > precisely defined: it may contain pointers that are not bound. A > compound SOAP structure is a logically a "view" rather than a > physical region of memory or a packet of data. The construct > that can be defined is the message package. That is why writing > the spec for the package is easier that defining how the package > looks from the SOAP layer. > > John. > > At 06:44 AM 9/11/2002 -0700, David Orchard wrote: > >> 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". >> > > > > ______________________________________________________ > John J. Barton email: John_Barton@hpl.hp.com > http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm > MS 1U-17 Hewlett-Packard Labs > 1501 Page Mill Road phone: (650)-236-2888 > Palo Alto CA 94304-1126 FAX: (650)-857-5100 >
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 12:09:14 UTC