W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2002

LC Issue 217

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:32:53 +0100
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-Id: <B3A0D548-94D2-11D6-AF42-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On last nights WG telcon I took an action to figure out the issues 
surrounding LC Issue 217[1]:

"(Section 2.1 SOAP Nodes)
A SOAP node MUST be identified by a URI.

Wonder if we should say "unambigously identified". eg.  http://.../next
does not unambiguously identify a SOAP node (some context for 
is required in addition to a URI in order to identify a SOAP node 
from this
Can the  URI be relative? I think not! Should we say "absolute URI"?

Good points. Another question: why 'MUST' a SOAP node be identified by a
URI ? Roles are identified by a URI, but why must a SOAP node be ?
Should this be a 'MAY' ?"

To summarise previous discussion (on the WG private list) of this issue:

Stuart Williams: "I think the emphasis might be such tha *if* a
SOAP node is to be identified then it MUST be (unambiguously?) 
identifed by
a URI. Relaxing to just MAY would admit other forms of identification"

Noah Mendelsohn: "I believe this was introduced to provide a value 
for the "Node" element  that's used in reporting faults.  I don't 
just want to know that the fault occurred at some node playing the 
role of a cache manager, I'd prefer to know which one.  I suggest 
we keep it."

Marc Hadley (in response to Noah): "But the Node EII is optional in 
faults so the MUST above seems a little OTT..."

Stuart Williams: "That a node is identified in a particular 
circumstance (in a fault message) is optional (MAY).

That a node is in fact being identified in that circumstance 
by URI (or URI reference - I hope not) is mandatory (MUST).

ie. the act identification is optional, but the means of 
identification is

At least that's what I think we are trying to say, an 'identified' 
is the
problem word here because the it is not clear whether it refers to 
the acy
or the means of identification."


I think Stuart pretty much nailed it above. Identifying a node is 
optional, but when a node *is* identified a URI is used.

Suggest we change "A SOAP node MUST be identified by a URI." to "A 
SOAP node is identified by an unambiguous URI".


[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x217
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 10:15:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC