- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:06:17 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 13:38, David Orchard wrote: > 1. Qnames are good as identifiers, as in "myns:component". I can see > having a list of properties and values, with the property names being > QNames. Grid, WSDM do this. There are other xml languages, like > XQuery, that are emerging that can be used to identify components as > well. Yes, qnames are often used to identify components within an XML document, but that isn't the issue AFAIK. The issue is that we're talking about using them to identify Web resources -- specifically WS endpoints. Can you point us to use cases that demonstrate that URIs are inadequate for identifying Web resources? (Ideally WS endpoints?) If Grid and/or WSDM have such use cases, pointers would be very helpful. > 2. I'm not sure what you saying is incorrect about the motivation for an > echoing facility. Whether it's ref props or params, there is an echoing > facility. As for Omri's post, you should check out the comment that I > left a few days ago. Yes, your comment said: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0359.html [[ I think in my discussion I focused on Ref properties, and I did not mention Ref parameters. ]] My point was that your example represented CustomerKey as a Reference *Property*, whereas it would have been more natural and appropriate (in most cases) to represent it as a Reference *Parameter*, because it is unlikely that a different value for CustomerKey would result in a different service interface. Thus, I don't think your example adequately motivates the need for Reference *Properties*. The difference between the two is important. We cannot sensibly discuss the need for for Reference *Properties* if they are not clearly distinguished from Reference *Parameters*. > 3. A URI could be separated into different sections, but that's not the > issue. The issue is that applications may want identifier information > that is protocol independent The description of Reference Properties in the WS-Addressing spec explicitly says that they are protocol *dependent*: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-addressing-20040810/#_Toc77464318 [[ The interpretation of these properties (as the use of the endpoint reference in general) is dependent upon the protocol binding and data encoding used to interact with the endpoint. ]] > or in a separate identifier space. We need to see use cases that demonstrate the need for a separate identifier space. > This > enables loose coupling, particularly separation of concerns. By having > the URI and Refs separate, then completely orthogonal software can work > on each piece. Can't an implementation choose to do the exact same thing by partitioning the URI instead? -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 15:06:19 UTC