RE: [Bug 8124] New: policy URIs - what do they reference?

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