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.

rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 
Action DC 2003/02/06: Propose TAG response to XML Schema desideratum
(RQ-23)

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.

/paulc

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

  

> -----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
a
> URI reference." [1]
> 
> To fulfill this requirement, the WSDL WG has developed
(non-normatively)
> a form of URIs for identifying WSDL abstract components.  The form we
> suggest is documented as an appendix to the WSDL specification [2].
It
> 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
own
> 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
WSDL
> document.  Dereferencing a WSDL namespace URI will not necessarily
> return a WSDL document, or even an XML document.  For instance, it
might
> 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]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html#wsdl
> -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