Lists Home |
Date Index |
The point that the negotiation is started by the
the owner declaring where the authoritative descriptions
are is illuminating. It is caveat vendor; let the
owner assume responsibility for reliability.
In a sense, that is political. No, RDDL is not political
in and of itself except insofar as some might want to
claim it is the only solution. (Note, earlier in the
thread, someone said, "it is the answer, no question").
But, in the sense that RDDL states where the authority
to answer the question (in my original list, it settles
an issue of dominance), that is political and it is also
satisfactory. The owner is saying, this is what I mean
and if you don't mean this, we have to talk or you have
to assume the risk. That is a good solution for a simple
negotiation in which one party asserts a complete solution.
We are all aware that the namespace spec does explicitly
not talk about resolution, and when first posted, persons
inquiring about that issue were told it wasn't an issue,
and ever since, it became one that wouldn't go away, so
RDDL became an XML-Dev attempt to answer it. That is
ok and beside the point. RDDL satisfies a requirement
for a type of negotiation in which the owner dominates
the semantic initially.
So far so good. I also asked, what about other solutions?
How does RDDL compare to web service discovery systems?
From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
It seems that the fundamental point of disagreement is that
you're asking "what is RDDL for?, what problems does it solve?,
what applications does it let me build more easily?". And in
particular you're considering it's applicability to distributed applications
where some negotiation is required (cf: Lens original thread).