W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > October 2005

RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:12:10 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E863C0F5@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

OK, thanks for being clear that we should track your objection farther!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:57 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: Arthur Ryman; Bijan Parsia; David Orchard; Henry S. Thompson; Pat
> Hayes; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: 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
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2005 18:12:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT