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: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:41:44 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E81A2800@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Yes, Dan's simple pointers point to XML elements rather than the
description component, per the XPointer spec if we keep compatible with
it for our media type (and we should!).  If that is sufficient for his
use he's free to do so, and even possibly layer on higher-level
inferences of equivalence between the element and the component within a
particular domain.  But testing XPointer is not something I feel the
WSDL WG should engage in.


However. my job here is simply to bring a clear issue, hopefully with a
proposal, before the WG for resolution.



From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:27 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: Bijan Parsia; Dan Connolly; Henry S. Thompson;
public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org; public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0



We don't have any test cases for the frag ids yet. However, if we do add
them, I don't think this implies we test Dan's proposal since it is very
problematic and not part of the spec. 

Isn't it the case that if users want to use simple fragment ids, they
can add an attribute of type ID to the element they want to reference?
That is allowed by the WSDL 2.0 schema. Wouldn't that we the correct
normative interpretation? The XPointer Framework calls these shorthand
pointers [1]. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/#shorthand 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 

"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org 

09/13/2005 05:23 PM 


"Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> 


<public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>, "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>,
"Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> 


RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0




Since component designators aren't used internally by WSDL I would guess
we would not conduct tests of them, indeed I'm not sure what that would
mean.  But the WG hasn't discussed this yet.  I'll try to bring it up
when we move to CR.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:17 PM
> 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 11:49 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Would you be satisfied with adding a note along the lines of the
> > following:
> >
> > "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."
> Yes, that's pretty much what I have in mind.
> That's not completely clear that targetNamespace#name has the
> same normative status as the other format, but I'm not inspired
> with better words.
> Do you have plans to do tests for component designators? I'd
> be satisfied to see targetNamespace#name right next to the
> others in a test suite.
> > Trying to cast this as a concrete initial proposal the WG could
> > deliberate...
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 17:43:22 UTC

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