- From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:52:32 -0400
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
At 12:59 AM 2003-04-10, dorchard@bea wrote: ... >4. Use full XPointer. The sample URI is >http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/#xmlns((w=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/)x >pointer(//w:portType[@name="TicketAgent"]/w:operation[@name="listFlights"]/w >:input[@name="listFlightsRequest"]) > >Pros: >- re-use XPointer syntax, which is a rec >- Compliant with URI specification & frag-identifiers >- Type is apparent >- extensions are identifiable > >Cons: >- complex syntax >- requires XPointer processor >- uris aren't guaranteed to be unique. Note that WS-I Basic Profile (draft) [1] R3010 references the UDDI Best Practice [1] for using WSDL in a UDDI Registry [2], which states "In this version, the format of the fragment identifier used in the overviewURL to refer to a specific wsdl:binding in a WSDL document ... has been changed to conform to the XPointer xpointer() scheme. This change is not compatible with the fragment identifiers specified in Version 1.07 of this document. Publishers are urged to change to the new form of fragment identifier." A new draft [3] UDDI Technical Note (TN) for WSDL is out for review [4]. It allows the xpointer approach, but also defines other UDDI structures (categoryBags, etc.), which can be used instead of fragment identifiers to refer to specific parts of a WSDL document. [1] http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-03/BasicProfile-1.0-BdAD.html#UDDITMS [2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/bp/uddi-spec-tc-bp-using-wsdl-v108-20021110.htm#_Toc24253860 [3] http://oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/draft/uddi-spec-tc-tn-wsdl-20030319-wd.htm [4] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200303/msg00068.html Paul
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 16:52:45 UTC