- 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
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 high. > 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