- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:12:10 -0700
- 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 UTC