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: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:41:24 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0C3582E9@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Harris Reynolds" <hreynolds@webmethods.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Extensibility point for other types of relationships?  BEA is mostly
interested in the request/response correlation, but we are worried that
we might have missed some relationships.  

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harris Reynolds
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:18 AM
> To: Martin Gudgin; Rich Salz
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> 
> 
> This is easily done with the RelatesTo element content, but doesn't
> require
> the RelationshipType attribute.  Right?  The question is what is a use
> case
> for this attribute.
> 
> 
> Harris Reynolds
> webMethods, Inc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:08 PM
> To: Harris Reynolds; Martin Gudgin; Rich Salz
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> 
> Correlate between a request and a response done with 2 asych messages.
> 
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harris Reynolds
> > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:48 AM
> > To: 'Martin Gudgin'; Rich Salz
> > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> >
> >
> > This is related, but slightly off topic.  Why do we need the
> relationship
> > type attribute in the first place?  What use case does it satisfy?
> >
> >
> > Harris Reynolds
> > webMethods, Inc.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> Gudgin
> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:57 PM
> > To: Rich Salz; Harris Reynolds
> > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> >
> >
> > Given that we have deal with "QNames in Content" anyway, what's the
> > motivation for moving from QName to URI for the @RelationshipType?
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rich
Salz
> > > Sent: 02 December 2004 19:49
> > > To: Harris Reynolds
> > > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> > >
> > >
> > > I totally agree that we should not replace qname's with URI's
> > > when they
> > > come from the outside (e.g WSDL), but that we should use
> > > URI's for our own
> > > stuff.
> > > 	/r$
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
> > > DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
> > > XS40 XML Security Gateway
> http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
> > > XML Security Overview
> > > http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 18:41:41 GMT

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