- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:20:34 -0700
- To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <006601c37bcf$34661d60$fe2b000a@beasys.com>
Can I add your text to the TAG issue 37 text? The third draft is at [1]. This seems like belonging to option #11 and the ";" option in #10. I think the feedback from Roy on the problems of hiearchical naming conventions within query parameters applies, whether it's a single parameter (your proposal) or multiple parameters (as described currently in option 11), fwiw. Is there any interest in discussing this at the f2f next week? I can be available in person. As a status update, the TAG did discuss issue 37 extensively at July f2f, but didn't not make significant process. I would say that the relationship between issue 37, rddl, the fragment identifier syntax for rddl, the relationship between rddl frag-ids and wsdl frag-ids, and metadata in URIs is quite complicated. I don't think that your statement "The heart of the issue is the inappropriateness of using fragment identifiers in conjunction with abstract URIs such as namespaces. " is accurate. It is not clear that frag-ids can or can't be used with URIs that may or may not be resolvable. rfc2396bis[2] talks about what happens if a representation isn't retrieved, section 3.5... "As with any URI, use of a fragment identifier component does not imply that a retrieval action will take place. A URI with a fragment identifier may be used to refer to the secondary resource without any implication that the primary resource is accessible. " This wording has arisen at least in part because of the WSDL WG's requirements, as well as RDDL and semantic web usages of fragment identifiers. I do believe that the issues that arise from fragment identifiers with namespace names are still valid, I'm just pointing out that I think it is legal to do so. Cheers, Dave [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jun/0054.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:06 PM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: Updating WSDL Component Designators > > > > Appendix C [1] of our spec describes a mechanism for assigning URIs to > WSDL components using fragment identifiers to combine the > targetNamespace with an XPointer-like component identifier. The > technical problems with this approach were referred to the > TAG [2]. The > heart of the issue is the inappropriateness of using fragment > identifiers in conjunction with abstract URIs such as namespaces. By > abstract I mean URIs without an expectations that dereferencing will > return a representation of a resource. > > To avoid that problem, I propose using the query component of URI [3] > instead of fragment identifiers. The syntax would be: > > <targetNamespace>?wsdl-<componentName>=<path1>.<path2>.<path3> > > Note that this is not recursive, nor accommodates target > namespaces with > query parameters in it. If these are desirable, the algorithm could > look for a query component '?' and if one exists, use ':' as > a delimiter > instead: > > > <targetNamespace>;wsdl-<componentName>=<path1>.<path2>.<path3> if the > targetNamespace does contain a query component. > > Here's what such a proposal would do to the URIs in example C-2 [1]: > > http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-interface=TicketAgent > http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-operation=TicketAgent.li stFlights http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-input=TicketAgent.listFlights.list FlightsRequest http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-output=TicketAgent.listFlights.lis tFlightsResponse http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-operation=TicketAgent.reserveFligh t http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-input=TicketAgent.reserveFlight.re serveFlightRequest http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-output=TicketAgent.reserveFlight.r eserveFlightResponse With the additional recursive functionality, and if the targetNamespace for some reason was a WSDL Component Designator such as "http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-interface=TicketAgent", here's what you'd get: http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/?wsdl-interface=TicketAgent;wsdl-input=s omething And if the targetNamespace already had a query param, like "http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent?wsdl", you'd get: http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent?wsdl;wsdl-interface=TicketAgent I think this mechanism is reversible. Comments? [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html#wsdl -uri-references [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0042.html [3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 17:23:57 UTC