W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > October 2005

RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:57:14 -0500
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1129154234.28805.716.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 13:17 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Dan,
> I won’t track your reply as “accepting our resolution”, but neither
> does it seem to be a “not accepted either”.  I’d appreciate it if
> you’d continue to cogitate on this and give us a clearer answer.

I have given it some more thought, and unfortunately the clear
answer I can give is that I am not satisfied that WSDL does
not give IRIs/URIs of the form doc#localName or doc#pfxlocalName
for interface components.

The cost of that changes seems moderate, and the
the burden of using names that end in a paren is unacceptably

> From here on down is my 2 cents without my chair hat on.
> The main root of the problem appears to be that the abbreviated syntax
> for RDF URI References in the RDF/XML Syntax Specification is
> incompatible with arbitrary fragment identifiers, including the full
> and appropriate use of XPointer.  As both specs are W3C
> Recommendations there are several ways to view the conflict.  My
> preferred viewpoint is that since XPointer was recommended a year
> earlier than RDF, the latter bears some responsibility for the
> incompatibility.

Quite possibly. Your argument is well made. Perhaps it will persuade
The Director that WSDL 2.0 should advance over this objection. But
I do think it's worth that sort of review.

I don't think that the doc#barename pattern is special to RDF; I think
it's a pervasive feature of the Web that WSDL should support.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 21:58:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:03 UTC