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

RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:49:44 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E8138CF0@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>, "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>

Would you be satisfied with adding a note along the lines of the

"Note that the component designators given below are only one form of
identifier for WSDL components.  Other forms can be used.  For instance,
using targetNamespace#name is sufficient when out-of-band mechanisms can
be relied on to ensure no names are the same (across all symbol spaces)
within a WSDL component model.  Such a mechanism cannot be relied for
general purpose use as is the one defined below."

Trying to cast this as a concrete initial proposal the WG could

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:41 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org; Bijan Parsia; Henry S. Thompson
> Subject: RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:34 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that the form of the component identifier should
> be
> > dependent upon what other (local) identifiers are in the document?
> That
> > we should define an identifier to a component that might lose its
> > property of unique identification when other (unrelated but
> perfectly
> > legal) components are added to the document?
> Yes.
> > This might be possible when you're trusting some infrastructure like
> > Schemas, DTDs or xml:id to ensure no duplicate identifiers occur,
> but in
> > our case duplicates (between symbol spaces) are completely legal.
> I'd recommend that people don't use the same name for different
> things in the same WSDL document; at least: not if they want
> nice URIs for them.
> > Your suggestion seems quite unstable in the face of WSDL evolution
> and
> > the distribution of components between multiple documents, the full
> > combination of which might not be available until runtime.
> I'm aware of those risks and I think they're manageable.
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 12 September 2005 18:49:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:57 UTC