- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:30:34 +0100
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 noah_mendelsohn writes: > Henry Thompson writes: > >> The suggestion made at the f2f, as I understood it, was to >> allow only the prefixes which were bound in the WSDL >> description identified by the primary URI, i.e. http://example. >> com/fabrikam/acct. > > This seems to make the association of EPRs to URIs dependent on a > particular WSDL file. While it's true that many users of WSA will also > use WSDL, I don't think that's required, and I don't think it should be > required. I am going to have to step back from this discussion until Tim BL or Dan C can recover more than I have been able to of our discussion in Edinburgh. I thought the story which excited them at that time depended on there being a reliably-shared source of namespace declarations == prefix bindings at the end of the primary URI. If that's not plausible, I agree the story fails. Given that the original discussion was in the context of WSRF, is it perhaps the case that WSRF does _require_ a WSDL document, or else requires some _other_ document which equally reliably provides the relevant declaration/binding. noah_mendelsohn writes: > You wind up pretty close to a situation where the only actor that > really understands the URI is the server that minted it, in which > case it's not clear why globally unique naming of the parameters is > of great value at all. If the server knows the WSDL, then > presumably it can use: > > http://example.com/fabrikam/acct?parm1=412 > > since it knows that the WSDL calls for only one parameter anyway. > > I presume that the WSA folks are using globally unique parameter names for > a reason, and I'm not yet convinced that grounding the URI mappings in a > WSDL file is appropriate. My understanding was that problem this approach solved was when a WSDL document imported some widely-used sharable artefact which defined e.g. an {http://www.example.org/WidelyUsed/PhysicsParams/}ExperimentCode reference param. . . But again, I'm hoping the originally enthusiastic participants can reconstruct the basis for their enthusiasm -- I'm just trying to provoke them! ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDV8YrkjnJixAXWBoRAoEcAJ9cxnVi2QrZQynC7afwDkmZn71k4QCfcQ8U 3RjT7Cs4JtCOwo/A0AyMVkw= =5mqD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2005 16:31:15 UTC