My friend Jim from “down under” told me today over messenger that my blog is “more of a social diary than a blog”. So, here’s a thought on WS-RF with which I think he will agree…
I think from now on the focus of the discussion is going to be on the conceptual model. WS-RF promotes a way of thinking in which an explicitly exposed resource (like a disk drive!!! :-), its state, and its identity are tight-coupled with the interface (the Web service) (hmmm… smells like an object… could it be an object? :-). A WS-Addressing instance containing some local-to-the-service information is seen by the WS-RF authors as an opaque structure because it plays the role of an identity AND it is a way to do message correlation. Ok, there is nothing wrong with the use of the underlying WS technology. I see a potential problem with the conceptual model which may encourage tight-coupling, since it promotes a way of thinking for building distributed applications where resources and their state are explicitly exposed outside a service’s boundaries.
The discussions (WS-CAF mailing list, OGSI-WG mailing list) on the use of WS-Context from WS-CAF versus the use of WS-Addressing as the way to do message correlation continue. I even contributed my thoughts after Mark Little’s request. BTW, Mark’s messages to the two lists contain very good arguments. Well said Mark.
I am embarking on a side project that involves memory and multimodal understanding for an…
I was in Toronto, Canada. I'm on the flight back home now. The trip was…
The BBC article "How we fell out of love with voice assistants" by Katherine Latham…
Like so many others out there, I played a bit with ChatGPT. I noticed examples…