W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: fragmentInXML-28: WSDL component designators

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:07:01 -0500
Message-ID: <E7AC4500EAB7A442ABA7521D1881439704CCBBC3@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>

I think we could discuss the issues raised in this email as part of our
discussions of the following issue and action item:

2.3 Other issues
The TAG is likely to review action items associated with these issues.

Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum

since the WSDL WG is asking us how they should do nearly exactly what we
want the XML Schema WG to do e.g. provide URIs for "schema" components.


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> Sent: February 3, 2003 6:19 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: fragmentInXML-28: WSDL component designators
> The WSDL WG has had a longstanding requirement to "ensure that all
> conceptual elements in the description of Messages are addressable by
> URI reference." [1]
> To fulfill this requirement, the WSDL WG has developed
> a form of URIs for identifying WSDL abstract components.  The form we
> suggest is documented as an appendix to the WSDL specification [2].
> is similar to the work in Schema Component Designators [3].
> Each abstract WSDL component belongs to a namespace, declared in the
> WSDL file.  Each WSDL component has a local name, but (just as in
> Schema) this local name is not always sufficient to uniquely identify
> the component within the namesapce.  Each kind of component has its
> symbol space (message, portType, etc.), and some components are scoped
> to their parents (parts in a message).  To uniquely identify the
> abstract component requires a combination of the:
>   - namespace URI  [NSURI]
>   - symbol space  [SS]
>   - local name  [NAME]
>   - parent component's local name  [PNAME]
>   - grandparent component's local name  [GNAME]
> Our mechanism maps these items to an XPointer-Framework-compatible URI
> of the form:
>   {NSURI} # {SS} ( {GNAME} / {PNAME} / {NAME} )
> For example:
>   http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/#operation(TicketAgent/listFlights)
> However, RFC 2396 states that the fragment identifier syntax is
> dependent upon the media type of the returned resource.  The WSDL
> namespace URI is not (necessarily) the same as the location of the
> document.  Dereferencing a WSDL namespace URI will not necessarily
> return a WSDL document, or even an XML document.  For instance, it
> be HTML.
> Is it wise to use fragment IDs for identifying abstract components
> within a namespace, even though it is the most natural and convenient
> mechanism?  Is there another mechanism that would be preferable?
> This issue also touches on other TAG issues:
>   rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 [4]
>   namespaceDocument-8 [5]
> - Jonathan Marsh, WSDL WG
> --------------------------------------
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/#semanweb
> [2]
> -uri-references (editor's draft)
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-ref/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 12:07:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT