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:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=110329640413835&w=2
 
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.
 
Thanks,
dims

  _____  

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harris
Reynolds
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
value)

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

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/,
BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_ServicesSoap} 

 

mapping to 

 

URI:
http://bosnewslife.com#BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_ServicesSoap
<http://bosnewslife.com/#BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_ServicesSoa
p> 

 

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
WSDL)?

 

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

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0510.ht
ml

[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 GMT

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