RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI

Sure, my point is true for servicename, or in fact any wsdl defined
qname.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srinivas, Davanum M [mailto:Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:32 PM
> To: David Orchard; Hugo Haas; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> 
> Replace PortType in sample with ServiceName since Issue [1] clearly
> includes ServiceName as something we need to check if we can replace.
> 
> Look at the EPR as is defined today.
> <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="..."
> xmlns:fabrikam="http://bosnewslife.com/">
>     <wsa:Address>http://www.fabrikam123.com/acct</wsa:Address>
> 
>
<wsa:ServiceName>fabrikam:BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_Services</
> wsa:ServiceName>
> </wsa:EndpointReference>
> 
> Is this more readable than what's above?
> <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="...">
>     <wsa:Address>http://www.fabrikam123.com/acct</wsa:Address>
> 
>
<wsa:ServiceName>urn:BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_Services:http:/
> /bosnewslife.com/</wsa:ServiceName>
> </wsa:EndpointReference>
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i037
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:18 PM
> To: Srinivas, Davanum M; Hugo Haas; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> 
> It is probably out of scope for WS-A to define a WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0
> portType/Interface to URI mapping.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Srinivas, Davanum M [mailto:Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:11 PM
> > To: David Orchard; Hugo Haas; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> >
> > Let's me illustrate better readability with Harris' example [1]
> >
> > Look at the EPR as is defined today.
> > <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="..."
> > xmlns:fabrikam="http://bosnewslife.com/">
> >     <wsa:Address>http://www.fabrikam123.com/acct</wsa:Address>
> >
> >
>
<wsa:PortType>fabrikam:BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_ServicesSoap<
> > /wsa:PortType>
> > </wsa:EndpointReference>
> >
> > Is this more readable than what's above?
> > <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="...">
> >     <wsa:Address>http://www.fabrikam123.com/acct</wsa:Address>
> >
> >
>
<wsa:PortType>urn:BosNewsLife_x0020_Information_x0020_ServicesSoap:http:
> > //bosnewslife.com/</wsa:PortType>
> > </wsa:EndpointReference>
> >
> > When you look at the PortType, you can see both the port type and
the
> > namespace, it's right there. In the current you need to scan the xml
> > document to look for xmlns:fabrikam and what then figure out what
> > namespace that it is mapped to....
> >
> > [1] http://bosnewslife.com/webservices/bnl_services.asmx?wsdl
> >
> > Thanks,
> > dims
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David
> Orchard
> > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 2:58 PM
> > To: Hugo Haas; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> >
> >
> > There's been no proof that the problems that the TAG finding talks
> about
> > are relevant to WS-A.  I generally refuse to do things "because
> somebody
> > smart said so", and *especially* when the smart people didn't outlaw
> > QNames and noted many cases where they were useful.  I remember when
I
> 
> > mentioned to TimBL that OASIS WS-Security had moved to URIs from
> QNames,
> > and he sighed and said "there goes readability".
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:35 AM
> > > To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> > >
> > > * David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2004-12-03 06:56-0800]
> > > > In general, +1.  It seems to me that any rationale for moving
part
> > of
> > > > WSA QNames to URIs would be to provide some kind of benefit.
I'm
> > not
> > > > strongly against moving relationshipType to URIs, but I'd like a
> > > > stronger reason than "because".
> > >
> > > I think that the motivation is not just "because", but the TAG
> finding
> >
> > > on QNames that I'm sure you're familiar with:
> > >
> > > | In so far as the identification mechanism of the Web is the URI
> and
> > > | QNames are not URIs, it is a mistake to use a QName for
> > identification
> > > | when a URI would serve.
> > >
> > > As this is internal to Addressing, it seems like a simple and
> natural
> > > change to do.
> > >
> > > So I quite like Harris's proposal.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Hugo
> > >
> > > --
> > > Hugo Haas - W3C
> > > mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 21:34:09 UTC