W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2002

TAG document and issues around fragments, URIs, QNames:

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:57:10 -0800
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <032901c289ab$e650c0a0$1f02a8c0@beasys.com>
Making the assumption that it's really the WSDL document's elements that
have to be addressable (instead of the "conceptual" elements)

-----
Constraint
Use URIs: All important resources SHOULD be identified by a URI.

The note on this is: This principle dates back at least as far as Douglas
Engelbart's seminal work on open hypertext systems; see section Every Object
Addressable in [Eng90].  

The engelbart section says "Every Object Addressable --in principle, every
object that someone might validly want/need to cite should have an
unambiguous address (capable of being portrayed in a manner as to be human
readable and interpretable). (E.g., not acceptable to be unable to link to
an object within a "frame" or "card.")"

I think that this supports the RDF issue if one thinks of objects that may
be part of resources.  The Constraint is resources should have URIs, the
extension is that important objects (aka elements) should have
URI-References.

------
rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 : Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName?:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6

This is still open.  The XML Schema WG has this issue, and the TAG is
interested in following.  The WSDL wg might want to say "Hey, we're
interested in this as well", if it adopts a QName based approach.  Though
this might be circular, as WSDL might only be interested depending upon the
result of xml schema's work.

------
qnameAsId-18 Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers?:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#qnameAsId-18
Closed, QNames ok.

------
fragmentInXML-28 : Use of fragment identifiers in XML
Do fragment identifiers refer to a syntactice element (at least for XML
content), or can they refer to abstractions?

The area of discussion seems clear.  There are some cases, like SVG, where
frag identifiers refer to the abstraction of an element.  However, I think
for WSDL purposes this issue doesn't matter.  WSDL will choose to create
element syntax for whatever concepts/abstractions it chooses.  Then a WSDL
user, like RDF, can then use whatever pointer scheme to point at a WSDL
element.  

To be honest, my opinion is that frag identifiers point to elements, not
abstractions.  So this may cloud my judgement on the utility of the issue.

-------
httpRange-14 : What is the range of the HTTP dereference function?

Revise the Architecture Document by creating one principle (out of 2 and 7
in the first public draft) that reads: "Ambiguity in the relationship
between URIs and resources is harmful for humans and machines." Two
instances of ambiguity are (1) lack of resources and (2) confusion about
what is identified. (See meeting minutes for more.).

I think this means that WSDL is free to use http: URIs for identification
purposes, and is not forced to use urn:.

Cheers,
Dave 



Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 12:59:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT