Re: [rest-discuss] Re: Idea: Simple Web Service Behaviour Language
> > I also can't see trying to convince a set of companies that plan to makeWell, there's definitely conflicting goals there. It would not have
> > money off a centralized model, that a decentralized model is the best
> > way to go. So I'm not really into evangelizing REST to them either.
> I don't really have the time to become an ebxml reg/rep expert but I do
> feel that the ebXML world is a natural ally for the REST world because
> they seem to be document-centric rather than API and software-centric.
been hard for them to decentralize without using REST, but they chose
not to. So I think that there's forces at work there.
And I'm not saying there's no value to evangelizing it to them. It's
just that there's only so many hours in a day.
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@...
- Mark Baker wrote:
> If the seller wants to give the buyer that option, I suppose itthe
> could return a 201 (Created) response with the URI of the offer
> in the Location header of the response. Then the buyer would
> just DELETE it to cancel the order.
> If richer cancellation semantics are required, a separate "cancel"
> document should be used, since I would expect that somebody would
> want to track that as a separate document. i.e the buyer POSTs a
> "cancel order" document which includes a link to the offer resource
> URI returned on the aforementioned 201 response.
> > Just to indicate more where I am going with this line of inquiry,
> > next problem I want to think about is the "counteroffer pending"Yes. You understand contract negotiation rules.
> > response, where the Seller will next make a counteroffer to the
> > Buyer.
> Does the offer of a counteroffer infer a rejection of the original
> offer? I would expect so.
> So in that case, the response to thestuff:
> offer document being POSTed could be a rejection document which
> included a URI to a counteroffer. Or it could be included inline
> as part of the rejection.
> > Where I am trying to go is into the resource model for this
> > what becomes a Web resource, where?it
> Everything with identity is a resource. That doesn't mean that a
> representation has to be retrieved with a GET though; it's fine for
> to be sent as a request or response, with the Content-Locationheader
> included so that the recipient can do a GET later if required.GET).
> In this case, the initial offer from buyer to seller would be POSTed
> with a Content-Location header, and the seller *could* invoke GET if
> they lost their copy 8-) (other cases might have a better use of
Ok, I am happy with this discussion at this stage. Thank you very
I am now in the midst of working through this same example with a lot
more detail in a couple of ebXML-related work groups. When they get
done, I'll come back here and see if I can take the various clues and
propose a RESTful offer-acceptance model that will also satisfy the
Then I will invite them to comment.
In the meantime, I'm still reading most of the list traffic and may
chip in from the peanut gallery now and then.