Re: Naming the service resource

While I think that R120 specifies an important requirement (URI for each
element within a WSDL document), I don't think it properly addresses the
requirement that I'm making.

A wsdl:service element is a definition of a service implementation, but it
isn't the service itself. And I don't think it's appropriate to ask someone
writing a DAML description to use a wsdl:service element to refer to the
service implementation.

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Naming the service resource


> Anne,
>
> You pose an important question, and I certainly agree that a service is
> important enough to warrant a URI.
>
> Arthur Ryman has done some excellent work figuring out how to
> make the QName --> URI mappings work, given that our QNames are ambiguous:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Dec/0021.html
> Do you think his proposed mapping represents an adequate solution to the
> problem?
>
>
> At 10:25 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> >Effectively, the service QName and a serviceURI perform the same
function:
> >they name the service. The difference is that the service QName is a
QName
> >rather than a URI. As long as everything associated with a service has
the
> >ability to work with XML and reference a QName, I'd say that this
difference
> >is mostly irrelavent, but I'm not convinced that everything that might
want
> >to reference a service can effectively use a QName to do so. Certainly a
URI
> >has much wider application.
> >
> >But that doesn't really hit the core issue. As TimBL has said repeatedly,
> >all *important* resources should have a URI (not a QName). I consider a
Web
> >service to be an important resource.
> >
> >My expectation is that in the future a service may have many different
> >descriptions -- a WSDL description, a DAML description, a policy
> >description, a text description, and who knows what other type of
semantic
> >description. Is this group audatious enough to claim that the WSDL
> >description is *the* primary description that defines the service? If so,
> >then the wsdl:service QName could be the official name of the service.
But I
> >wouldn't be that audatious. IMHO, the service is a resource in its own
> >right, whether or not it has a WSDL description, and as such, it ought to
> >have a URI.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Anne
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
> >To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
> >Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:56 PM
> >Subject: Re: Naming the service resource
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Anne,
> > >
> > > On today's teleconference, I took an action to ask you what is the
> > > difference between your proposed serviceURI and the service QName that
we
> > > currently have.
> > >
> > > In [1] you wrote:
> > > >My suggestion is that we name the *service resource*, as opposed to
the
> > > >interface to the service or the definition of the service. I don't
think
> > > >that it's appropriate to use the WSDL document plus fragment
identifier
> > > >for this purpose, because the fragment identifier is the URI of the
> > > >definition of the service, not the service itself.
> > >
> > > Do you mean that you don't think it would be appropriate to use the
URI of
> > > a WSDL document, plus the fragID of the service, to identify the
> > > service?  If so, I agree, but I don't think that is what others were
> >assuming.
> > >
> > > I believe we've been assuming that the service QName (i.e.,
> >targetNamespace
> > > + Local name) would adequately identify the service, independent of
> > > endpoints, though it is true that it is syntactically ambiguous, since
> >WSDL
> > > 1.2 treats different element types as being in different symbol
> > > spaces.  (You could have a service, interface, operation and message
all
> > > called "foo", so they'd all have the same QName, and it would not be
an
> > > error in WSDL 1.2.)
> > >
> > > Would your proposed serviceURI be semantically similar to the existing
> > > QName, aside from the inherent ambiguity of our WSDL 1.2 QNames?   If
not,
> > > what would be the differences?
> > >
> > > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0008.html
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Booth
> > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> > >
>
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 23:39:15 UTC