RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0

Dan/Pat,

I think there is a misundertanding somewhere (either me or Pat).

Pat seems to think there is a trailing closing paren without a previous 
matching open paren. Pat wrote:

So, a trailing close parenthesis 
without a matching open parenthesis is liable to trigger all kinds of 
lexical errors. 

That is not a problem in the XPointer framework since all the parens are 
balanced. The WSDL URI have balanced parens.


Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
10/11/2005 12:58 PM

To
Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
cc
Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, David 
Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, 
public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Subject
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] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC335
>  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?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/0023.html


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.
> 
> 
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/#wsdl.interface_SparqlQuery

> 
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/#wsdl.interface.SparqlQuery

> 
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/#wsdl.interface-SparqlQuery

> 
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/#wsdl-interface-SparqlQuery

> 
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/#wsdl.interfaceSparqlQuery
> 
> 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 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E