- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:40:23 +0000
- To: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
We would like to provide some data for discussion. There aren't any disadvantages in defining multiple namespace names in a specification. There are precedents [1] here. In Web Services specifications [2][3][4], protocol and metadata elements are usually in different namespace names. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-wsdl20-20070626/#nsprefixes [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200702 [3] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-os.html [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-metadata/#wspolicyassertions Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu Microsoft Corporation -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:33 AM To: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org Subject: [Bug 8124] New: policy URIs - what do they reference? http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8124 Summary: policy URIs - what do they reference? Product: WS-Resource Access Version: FPWD Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: All AssignedTo: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org ReportedBy: dug@us.ibm.com QAContact: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org For each spec (except MEX) we've defined policy URIs -for example, in WS-Transfer we now have the XML prefix "wstrp" mapping to: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/ws-trp The WG needs to decide a couple of things: 1 - do we want to have a separate NS for the policy assertions or should we just reuse the normal NS for each spec 2 - if we do have separate namespaces then what do those URIs point to? For example, does http://.../2009/09/ws-trp reference the Transfer spec? What do we put in the Namespace table? Right now for "wstrp" it says "This specification". Which, if remains, why do we have a separate NS? If we see the policy assertions having a separate lifecycle from the specs then a separate NS makes sense. But if they will pretty much always be tied to the spec then a separate NS seems pointless. No proposal at this time - but we should discuss. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 19:41:00 UTC