RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0

On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 13:52 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked
> this as a Last Call comment LC335 [1]. 
> [1]
>  The Working Group was unable to find consensus that the shorter form
> of component designators would have all the desired characteristics
> that led us to the current design. The issue was therefore closed
> without action.
> We hope that some of the discussion on this list (particularly using
> the best-case scenario rather than the worst-case) alleviates some of
> your concerns.

Some of them.
> If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
> satisfies your concern.

I asked around if some nearby folks were satisfied.

 ok if URIs for SPARQL interface etc. ends with paren?

I got one clear 'no' answer (below). I'm still thinking about whether
I find the ... #wsdl.interface(SparqlQuery) syntax acceptable.

Pat Hayes writes:
> The problem is that enclosing parens are (pretty much by definition 
> of 'paren')  widely used as textual breaking symbols in lexical 
> analysis. This is true for NL text in almost all human languages, 
> mathematical texts, any LISP-based programming language text, almost 
> all logical notations, etc. etc.. So, a trailing close parenthesis 
> without a matching open parenthesis is liable to trigger all kinds of 
> lexical errors. It is also, for a similar reason, liable to be 
> mis-read by a human reader. (I myself find that I see the close 
> paren, become conscious of the cognitive dissonance, and then have to 
> visually search for the matching open paren inside the string, which 
> is not a natural way of reading and intrudes on what ought to be an 
> unconscious process. This is a psychological hall-mark of a bad 
> visual design, eg see Don Norman's writings.) And there seems to be 
> no need to do this brain-damaged thing, since one could adopt a 
> variety of linking conventions within white-space-free text to 
> achieve the same intuitive-communication purpose, e.g.
> any of which would be readable and lexically harmless.
> I would remark more generally that there is a tendency which might be 
> called glyph-creep, whereby W3C standards implicitly use up symbols 
> that already have a significant use in the world in general, thereby 
> forcing people to use unreadable work-arounds. XML's seizure of the 
> less-than sign and the ampersand is probably the most egregious 
> example, requiring almost every mathematical text written since 1300 
> to be re-drafted. Please, do not also take away the parentheses.
> Pat

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 16:58:28 UTC