Re: [wsrf] Comment on Primer / Issue WSRF 156

[Tim Banks <tim_banks@uk.ibm.com>]

Kirk,

I think the Primer's statements are not inconsistent  with the definitions
in  WS Resource.  It's necessary to have a logical entity (resource) which
is part of a service implementation, and which can be identified within it,
and whose state can be projected into XML and accessed via a Web service.
However,  that resource may *represent* anything one wants it to.  The
primer says that WS Resources can *represent* anything one requires them
to, and demonstrates two examples - one logical, (shopping cart) and one
with a close relationship to physical (printer, ink & paper) resources.

Regards, Tim Banks.

kirk.wilson@ca.com wrote on 03/11/2005 11:54:23:

> Line 117 of WS-Resource states that a resource is a "logical
> entity".  Mark McKeown has raised an issue on this definition (WSRF
> 156), but it was judged that no change needs to be done to the text
> (Oct 31 Teleconference).  However, Section 4.2 of the Primer states,
> ". . .WS-Resource can represent both physical devices and logical
> entities."  The Primer should be brought into line with the spec (or
> vice versa !)and Ian's explanation for "logical" should be included
> in the Primer.
>
> (I, for one, agree with Mark that the word "logical" is ambiguous,
> even ignoring common parlance in which "logical" means "reasonable".
> Logic deals with form, not entity-hood.  The closest thing I can
> think of to a "logical entity" is a set (from set theory), but that
> is not the intended meaning here.)
>
> Kirk Wilson
> Computer Associates