RE: What are the exemptions for use of IRI?

If the group think it's OK to keep all the use of the term URI
throughout the primer for simplification (and readability), I am fine.
Will send a proposal for LC303 in that spirit in a separate message.
 
However, it's still not clear if there is really any exemption for using
IRIs.  For example, It seems that everything stated in section 5.6 (
under Advanced Topic II, quoted below for your convenience) is also
applicable to IRIs. Is that right? Can we say that the use of term URI
and IRI are interchangeable in the primer?
 
Best Regards,
Kevin


5.6 Notes on URIs


5.6.1 XML Namespaces and Schema Locations


It is a common misperception to equate either the target namespace of an
XML Schema or the value of the xmlns attribute in XML instances with the
location of the corresponding schema. Even though namespaces are URIs,
and URIs may be locations, and it may be possible to retrieve a schema
from such a location, this does not mean that the retrieved schema is
the only schema that is associated with that namespace. There can be
multiple schemas associated with a particular namespace, and it is up to
a processor of XML to determine which one to use in a particular
processing context. The WSDL 2.0 specification provides the processing
context here via the import mechanism, which is based on XML Schema's
term for the similar concept.


5.6.2 Relative URIs


Throughout this document there are fully qualified URIs used in WSDL 2.0
and XSD examples. In some cases, fully qualified URIs were used simply
to illustrate the referencing concepts. However, the use of relative
URIs is allowed and warranted in many cases. For information on
processing relative URIs, see RFC2396
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> .


5.6.3 Generating Temporary URIs


In general, when a WSDL 2.0 document is published for use by others, it
should only contain URIs that are globally unique. This is usually done
by allocating them under a domain name that is controlled by the issuer.
For example, the W3C allocates namespace URIs under its base domain
name, w3.org.

However, it is sometimes desirable to make up a temporary URI for an
entity, for use during development, but not make the URI globally unique
for all time and have it "mean" that version of the entity (schema, WSDL
2.0 document, etc.). Reserved Top Level DNS Names [IETF RFC 2606
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-primer-20050803/#RFC2606> ]
specifies some URI base names that are reserved for use for this type of
behavior. For example, the base URI "http://example.org/" can be used to
construct a temporary URI without any unique association to an entity.
This means that two people or programs could choose to simultaneously
use the temporary URI " http://example.org/userSchema" for two
completely different schemas. As long as the scope of use of these URIs
does not intersect, then they would be unique enough. However, it is not
recommended that " http://example.org/" be used as a base for stable,
fixed entities.

 

  

 



________________________________

	From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, Sep 20, 2005 7:50 AM
	To: Liu, Kevin; Hugo Haas
	Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
	Subject: RE: What are the exemptions for use of IRI?
	
	

	IIRC, the WG was not prepared to do a global search and replace
of URI for IRI in the primer, as URIs are a familiar concept and in
almost all cases in the Primer the term is good enough.  Having one
statement pointing out that our use of URI instead of IRI is a
simplification should be sufficient.  We can confirm this on this week's
call if I've misrepresented the WG's decision.

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com] 
	Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 5:25 PM
	To: Hugo Haas; Jonathan Marsh
	Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
	Subject: What are the exemptions for use of IRI?

	 

	Hi Hugo, Hi Jonathan,

	 

	While working on proposing changes to the primer to implement
your suggestions in LC303 [1], I realize that we may also need to do a
global search in the Primer to replace the term URI with IRI to be
consistent with the core spec, in addition to adding a brief
introduction to IRI as you suggested.

	 

	However, I  notice that the resolution of LC74a [2] , which
caused the URI to IRI changes in Part 1 and 2,  contains a few
exemptions. The resolution of LC74a says <quote>Change URI to IRI
throughout except URI attr and prop on featiures and properties and SOAP
module, which becomes "ref"; exempt appendix E where we talk about
namespace URIs, and section 4.11.2 in adjunct spec.</quote>.  

	 

	It's not clear to me what the last two exemptions really are
since section "Appendix E" and "section 4.11.2 in adjunct specs" are
completely changed/removed in the current version of the spec. In
particular,

		*	If I recall it right, the former Part 1
appendix E is now part of the Primer section 5.6 [3] which talks about
namespace URIs.   Does the exemption for "Appendix E" in LC74a mean that
namespace URI should not be changed to IRI? if so, why? 
		*	I have no idea what the "adjunct section 4.11.2"
was, do you know what  the exemption for "section 4.11.2" is? 

	[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC303

	[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC74a
	[3]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-primer-20050803/#adv-notes-on-uris

	Best Regards,
	Kevin
	  

	 

		 

		
________________________________


		From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
		Sent: Thursday, Sep 08, 2005 10:00 AM
		To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
		Subject: Minutes, 8 Sep 2005 WS Description WG telcon

		Encl.

		 

		--  Jonathan Marsh  --  jmarsh@microsoft.com
<mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com>   --
http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/
<http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/>   --