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

RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI

From: Srinivas, Davanum M <Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:40:35 -0500
Message-ID: <87527035FDD42A428221FA578D4A9A5B089E95DD@usilms24.ca.com>
To: "Harris Reynolds" <hreynolds@webmethods.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Here's some practical problems in the field with QName's in
wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:ServiceName if anyone is STILL interested:
Note that Anne is hoping that we "will replace the xs:qname types with
xs:anyuri" and is plugging Rich's IETF draft as a model to follow.


From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harris
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:15 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI

This issue [1] centers around replacing QNames in attribute values or
element content with URIs.


The use of a QName is used in three places current working draft:


1)       wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType information header (attribute

2)       wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:PortType element in an EPR (element

3)       wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:ServiceName element in an EPR
(element content)


Mapping the RelationshipType attribute with a URI is relatively
straightforward.  We could designate a URI like
http://www.w3.org/2004/10/addressing/relationship/reply for the default
case of relating a reply to the originating message; in other cases,
since the type would be anyUri, developers could simply use their own
URIs.  This is good.


As DavidO pointed out [2], it is much more complicated to replace the
QNames representing wsdl:portTypes and wsdl:service with URIs.  This
will essentially require us to craft a definitive mapping of these WSDL
QNames to URIs to be used within WS-Addressing.  For this WSDL [3]
(picked randomly from xmethods.net) one possibility here could be:


Qname: {http://bosnewslife.com/,


mapping to 




This works in this simple case but could easily be problematic in other
cases.  Is there a mapping that would work in all cases (i.e. any valid


Despite the TAG finding regarding this kind of issue [4], it seems that
this is a case where using a QName is much more natural. For now I am +1
on changing the Relationship type to anyUri and -1 on changing the
wsdl:portTypes and wsdl:service QNames to URIs.



Harris Reynolds

webMethods, Inc.



[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i037


[3] http://bosnewslife.com/webservices/bnl_services.asmx?wsdl

[4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html#sec-archrec



Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 15:41:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC