W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2004

RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:18:04 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0C27FAFF@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Srinivas, Davanum M" <Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

It is probably out of scope for WS-A to define a WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0
portType/Interface to URI mapping.  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srinivas, Davanum M [mailto:Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:11 PM
> To: David Orchard; Hugo Haas; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> 
> Let's me illustrate better readability with Harris' example [1]
> 
> Look at the EPR as is defined today.
> <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="..."
> xmlns:fabrikam="http://bosnewslife.com/">
>     <wsa:Address>http://www.fabrikam123.com/acct</wsa:Address>
> 
>
<wsa:PortType>fabrikam:BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_ServicesSoap<
> /wsa:PortType>
> </wsa:EndpointReference>
> 
> Is this more readable than what's above?
> <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="...">
>     <wsa:Address>http://www.fabrikam123.com/acct</wsa:Address>
> 
>
<wsa:PortType>urn:BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_ServicesSoap:http:
> //bosnewslife.com/</wsa:PortType>
> </wsa:EndpointReference>
> 
> When you look at the PortType, you can see both the port type and the
> namespace, it's right there. In the current you need to scan the xml
> document to look for xmlns:fabrikam and what then figure out what
> namespace that it is mapped to....
> 
> [1] http://bosnewslife.com/webservices/bnl_services.asmx?wsdl
> 
> Thanks,
> dims
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David
Orchard
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 2:58 PM
> To: Hugo Haas; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> 
> 
> There's been no proof that the problems that the TAG finding talks
about
> are relevant to WS-A.  I generally refuse to do things "because
somebody
> smart said so", and *especially* when the smart people didn't outlaw
> QNames and noted many cases where they were useful.  I remember when I
> mentioned to TimBL that OASIS WS-Security had moved to URIs from
QNames,
> and he sighed and said "there goes readability".
> 
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:35 AM
> > To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> >
> > * David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2004-12-03 06:56-0800]
> > > In general, +1.  It seems to me that any rationale for moving part
> of
> > > WSA QNames to URIs would be to provide some kind of benefit.  I'm
> not
> > > strongly against moving relationshipType to URIs, but I'd like a
> > > stronger reason than "because".
> >
> > I think that the motivation is not just "because", but the TAG
finding
> 
> > on QNames that I'm sure you're familiar with:
> >
> > | In so far as the identification mechanism of the Web is the URI
and
> > | QNames are not URIs, it is a mistake to use a QName for
> identification
> > | when a URI would serve.
> >
> > As this is internal to Addressing, it seems like a simple and
natural
> > change to do.
> >
> > So I quite like Harris's proposal.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hugo
> >
> > --
> > Hugo Haas - W3C
> > mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 21:18:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT