W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2003

Re: R120 URI-references, input for editors

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 17 Jan 2003 12:20:14 +0100
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1042802414.27809.157.camel@krava.in.idoox.com>


concerning non-top-level conceptual elements (those *not* named with an
XName - expanded name, what we used to understand under the term QName),
we in WSDL use an indirect approach to referencing them - message parts
are referenced by referencing the message with its XName and the part
with its name. Why do we think a single URI is going to be necessary, if
the main user of message parts - WSDL itself - doesn't need it? 

I know we voted on the simpler approach at the f2f, but it seems we're
in fact going to mimic XML Schema's approach (the TAG was waiting to see
what XML Schema decides on, too).

In a different mail, you mentioned the need to be able to reference all
conceptual parts of our languages (WSDL, XML Schema). 

Until I'm shown why it's needed, I dismiss the requirement for direct
URI referencing of non-top-level named components, like WSDL message

Finally, I completely disagree that e.g. XML Schema anonymous types need
to be referenced (other than by XPointer/XPath in a schema document)
because if they really need to be referenced, they should be named. XML
Schema itself cannot reference an anonymous type, can it?

To conclude: if something needs to be referenced, it should be named. If
something only makes sense in a context, it should be referenced
together with the context. XNames and namespaces should follow RDF/XML's
simplistic approach.

I hope to discuss this all with the XML Schema folks in context of
Component Designators or with TAG folks in context of TAG issues 6 and
maybe 28.


On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 22:56, ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:
> Jacek,
> Concerning <part>, it is true that are not named with a QName, but they are
> conceptual elements of WSDL. R120 says that all conceptual elements should
> have a URI-reference.
> I looked at using raw XPointer/XPath and produced examples of the syntax.
> They do solve the problem, but they are very complex. I presented the
> alternatives at the last f2f. The WG voted on the simpler syntax even
> though it meant inventing something. The simpler syntax is compliant with
> the XPointer Framework.
> Consider the following fragment example which appears in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Dec/att-0021/01-URI-References.html:
> The portType TicketAgent has an operation listFlights that contains an
> input listFlightsRequest
> The proposed XPointer Framework syntax is:
> #input(TicketAgent/listFlights/listFlightsRequest)
> The full XPath syntax is:
> #xmlns(w=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/) xpointer(//w:portType[@name
> ="TicketAgent"]/w:operation[@name="listFlights"]/w:input[@name
> ="listFlightsRequest"])
> Concerning your discussion of XNames, I don't understand the point you are
> trying to make. Can you explain what an XName is?
> Arthur Ryman,
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 06:20:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:27 UTC