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

Re: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?)

From: Mark Baker <mbaker@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:59:43 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d041117155968b38eb8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

The URI part of the EPR seems to fit well inside wsa:To, so I don't
see a problem there.  What I believe is that the reference property
information should be part of the URI, and therefore map to a SOAP
envelope via wsa:To rather than an extension header.

BTW, partly as an aside (but partly not), I think it's quite telling
that the SOAP binding is lossy (i.e. given a recipient of a SOAP
message cannot reconstruct an EPR).  This suggests to me that
insufficient thought has been put into the value of EPRs as a
standalone entity.  Have any other bindings been defined?  I believe
it is risky to draw any general conclusions about what an EPR should
look like based on a single binding.

FWIW,  if reference properties were removed, then the binding would be lossless.

Mark.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:09:39 -0800, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> To add to DaveO's response, remember the purpose of the sub-address.
> It's used in conjunction with the address URI to enable the
> infrastructure to deliver the message to its ultimate destination.  It's
> designed to work with SOAP, which defines headers for the purpose of
> delivering the message to the ultimate SOAP destination.  SOAP headers
> are XML.  Thus it is quite natural for RefProps to be XML as well, to
> eliminate a translation or binding process from some other form (plain
> text?) to XML.  A model that wasn't SOAP-centric perhaps wouldn't get as
> much synergy from XML.
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 00:01:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT