Re: R120 URI-references, input for editors

Jacek,

I read [1]. My understanding is that you are making 2 points:

1. if 2 components have the same qname then they should be viewed as
representing a single concept, e.g. an XML type and element named date in
the namespace http://example.org are conceptually related

2. the syntax for mapping a qname to a uri should be concatenation, as is
done in RDF/XML: e.g. http://example.org/date

I have problems with these points.

1. In WSDL there are scopes that isolate component names. For example, the
<part> elements of a <message> have names that are local to the <message>.
It would be very awkward to find unique names for all <part>s. This
requirement would be like saying that the parameter names for a Java method
had to be unique within a package. Finding unique names would be very
awkward.

2. The concatenation syntax can lead to name conflicts. For example,
suppose http://example.org/date is already the namespace of another schema.
The the URIs you create in the http://example.org namespace conflict with
it. The solution is to use the fragment syntax, e.g.
http://example.org#date. My proposal for R120 is just a variant of this to
remove the above objection to making names unique.

Arthur Ryman


                                                                                                                                                    
                      Jacek Kopecky                                                                                                                 
                      <jacek@systinet.c        To:       Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA                                                             
                      om>                      cc:       WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>                                                     
                                               Subject:  Re: R120 URI-references, input for editors                                                 
                      01/14/2003 05:04                                                                                                              
                      AM                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                    



Arthur, Group, others,

please see my message [1] to the XML Schema WG about their Component
Designators working draft, which is very much related to our R120
implementation. It states my position on the whole problem.

In summary, I'm against inventing ways to turn component qnames into
different URIs for different symbol spaces.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/


[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0019.html

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 11:54:26 UTC