W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

RE: Possible new issue on interpretation of relative URI actors

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:07:14 -0500
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF75981E59.CD5303E9-ON85256B18.0058FEFD@lotus.com>
The question is not so much about establishing a base, it is about 
clarifying the responsibilities of a node in assuming a role.

We have said nothing to indicate that a role is a web resource, or that it 
is the resource named by the actor URI.  For example, we do nothing to 
preclude naming a role as the name of some other resource.  Remember, 
there may be a large number of intermediaries, possibly in different 
organizations that might want to assume a role like:

        http://example.org/cachemanagers

Any resource referenced by the URI is not general at any of the 
intermediaries assuming the role, and it's almost surely not one accessed 
via http or that follows the rules for the HTTP scheme.  In that respect, 
one could argue that following the other rules for resources is dangerous 
as much as helpful. 

On the other hand, you might make the case that this is talking about some 
other resource, but that the assumed role itself is not the resource.  In 
other words, there's at least in principle a resource, probably at some 
nth+1st location, and the actor attribute is referring to that resource. 
In that case, I can see why we should follow the usual URI rules.  I think 
that's about where you and I would find common ground.

In any case, I see it as subtle enough that we should indeed say something 
brief and clear about what's intended.  In other words, to say that roles 
are indeed web resources (from which follows everything I think you want 
wrt/ naming).  I'm OK with that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
12/04/01 10:54 AM

 
        To:     <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: Possible new issue on interpretation of relative URI actors


Please have a look at the proposed text for handling xml base which
already discusses the question of how to establish a base URI for a
message and how to deal with URIs in general. Given that we already have
an issue for xml base I am wondering whether we need another issue.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0005.html

>In private discussion, Henrik and I tripped over the question of a 
>relative URI used as an actor.  If a block has:
>
>        Actor="#A"
>
>or 
>
>        Actor="A"
>
>and if a node decides to act in that role, is there 
>necessarily some other 
>absolute URI in which role it needs to act?  I had assumed "no", but I 
>think Henrik had assumed "yes", and he further believes that 
>no changes to 
>the SOAP spec are needed, as this is implicit in the web and URI 
>architecture and the definition of a relative URI.
>
>I would prefer to at least be a bit clearer in the spec, say a 
>bit more 
>about what the base URI for a message might be, etc. 
>Presumably the base 
>URI must be stable through message processing, so if you no 
>how to make #A 
>absolute, then #B must follow from that and be handled consistently?
>
>All of this bears some relation to the dreaded Namespace issue 
>(is it a 
>string or a real URI) but at least in this case nobody is proposing to 
>actually retrieve a resource in most cases. 
>
>Anyway, I recommend we open an issue.  Thanks.
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 11:18:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC