RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0

On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 13:17 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I won’t track your reply as “accepting our resolution”, but neither
> does it seem to be a “not accepted either”.  I’d appreciate it if
> you’d continue to cogitate on this and give us a clearer answer.

I have given it some more thought, and unfortunately the clear
answer I can give is that I am not satisfied that WSDL does
not give IRIs/URIs of the form doc#localName or doc#pfxlocalName
for interface components.

The cost of that changes seems moderate, and the
the burden of using names that end in a paren is unacceptably
high.


> From here on down is my 2 cents without my chair hat on.
>  
> The main root of the problem appears to be that the abbreviated syntax
> for RDF URI References in the RDF/XML Syntax Specification is
> incompatible with arbitrary fragment identifiers, including the full
> and appropriate use of XPointer.  As both specs are W3C
> Recommendations there are several ways to view the conflict.  My
> preferred viewpoint is that since XPointer was recommended a year
> earlier than RDF, the latter bears some responsibility for the
> incompatibility.

Quite possibly. Your argument is well made. Perhaps it will persuade
The Director that WSDL 2.0 should advance over this objection. But
I do think it's worth that sort of review.

I don't think that the doc#barename pattern is special to RDF; I think
it's a pervasive feature of the Web that WSDL should support.

> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E