- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:05:47 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > Then we should be able to use http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query#SparqlQuery At the risk of putting salt into a still-open wound: I think the TAG as a whole is still, as of Basel, officially unresolved on whether there's a preference for / or # in naming sub-resources. Yes, our progress on httpRange14 may take some pressure off, but I don't think we ever went backi to / vs. # in particular, did we? Pending such resolution, is there a reason that the above is to be recommended over http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/SparqlQuery ? I'm not arguing that one or the other is better, just that if we left the choice pending for reasources in general, I'm curious why we would take an earlier stand on namespaces in particular. Both of the above look plausible to me. For that matter, is it obvious that in all cases http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query?name='SparqlQuery' is a mistake? I certainly wouldn't push for this as good practice in most cases, but I can't see why it's provably a mistake either. What am I missing? Thanks. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org 09/09/2005 04:23 PM To: www-tag@w3.org cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) Subject: [Fwd: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0] (abstractComponentRefs-37 ) I think there was some support for this position when we last discussed abstractComponentRefs-37, but I don't think we made any decisions. So I just sent my personal view on how WSDL should map qnames to URIs. Anybody agree? Disagree? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E ----- Message from Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> on Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:18:49 -0500 ----- To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> Subject: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0 Regarding... C. IRI References for WSDL 2.0 Components http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050803/#wsdl-iri-references Those URIs are much more complicated than they need to be: http://example.org/TicketAgent.wsdl20#xmlns(xsTicketAgent=http://example.org/TicketAgent.xsd) wsdl.elementDeclaration(xsTicketAgent:listFlightsRequest) In the simple case, if there's only one component named CN in a namespace TNS, then TNS#CN should be a standard URI for it. e.g. given targetNamespace="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query" and <interface name="SparqlQuery" Then we should be able to use http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query#SparqlQuery to refer to that interface. FYI, I think Henry made this argument in the TAG regarding issue abstractComponentRefs-37 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#abstractComponentRefs-37 ... for example at our june meeting. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/06/14-16-minutes.html#item031 Henry should get only credit, not blame, in case I'm misrepresenting his position. See also similar comments on XML Schema component designators... simple barenames for schema component designators 31 Mar 2005 http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/1112297140.32006.540.camel@localhost;list=www-xml-schema-comments p.s. thanks to Bijan for helping me find the relevant part of the spec in IRC discussion http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/swig/2005-09-09#T19-51-41 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 06:06:17 UTC