- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:05:39 -0800
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I apologize if my mail seemed a bit sharp in the language - I should have eaten something first. Henrik >-----Original Message----- >From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 09:12 >To: 'noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com' >Cc: 'Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com'; 'xml-dist-app@w3.org' >Subject: RE: Possible new issue on interpretation of relative >URI actors > > > >In SOAP, all we use URIs for is as identifiers. A role is >identified by a URI which by definition identifies a resource. >We say nothing about what the semantics or properties of that >resource and I think this is very important that we don't do. > >When you pick a specific URI scheme (like for example HTTP), >you explicitly pick a URI space with certain naming >properties: whether it is hierarchical, whether it is >case-sensitive, etc. etc. > >One might know a suggested mechanism for dereferencing a URI >with a specific URI scheme may and if so then there is nothing >that prevents anybody from ever dereferencing a URI but that >is entirely outside the scope of SOAP. > >Dereferencing URIs is all about trust - I may trust DNS in >order to do so or I may trust somebody else to dereference it. >As such I don't agree that URI semantics is dangerous in >either of the cases you mention: it is a question of how I >establish trust in determining whether a Node can act in the >role that it claims it can. > >Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 08:07 >>To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >>Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org >>Subject: RE: Possible new issue on interpretation of relative >>URI actors >> >> >>The question is not so much about establishing a base, it is about >>clarifying the responsibilities of a node in assuming a role. >> >>We have said nothing to indicate that a role is a web >>resource, or that it >>is the resource named by the actor URI. For example, we do >nothing to >>preclude naming a role as the name of some other resource. Remember, >>there may be a large number of intermediaries, possibly in different >>organizations that might want to assume a role like: >> >> http://example.org/cachemanagers >> >>Any resource referenced by the URI is not general at any of the >>intermediaries assuming the role, and it's almost surely not >>one accessed >>via http or that follows the rules for the HTTP scheme. In >>that respect, >>one could argue that following the other rules for resources >>is dangerous >>as much as helpful. >> >>On the other hand, you might make the case that this is >>talking about some >>other resource, but that the assumed role itself is not the >>resource. In >>other words, there's at least in principle a resource, >>probably at some >>nth+1st location, and the actor attribute is referring to that >>resource. >>In that case, I can see why we should follow the usual URI >>rules. I think >>that's about where you and I would find common ground. >> >>In any case, I see it as subtle enough that we should indeed >>say something >>brief and clear about what's intended. In other words, to say >>that roles >>are indeed web resources (from which follows everything I >>think you want >>wrt/ naming). I'm OK with that. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>--------- >>Noah Mendelsohn Voice: >>1-617-693-4036 >>Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 >>One Rogers Street >>Cambridge, MA 02142 >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>--------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com> >>12/04/01 10:54 AM >> >> >> To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org> >> cc: >> Subject: RE: Possible new issue on >>interpretation of relative URI actors >> >> >>Please have a look at the proposed text for handling xml base >>which already discusses the question of how to establish a >>base URI for a message and how to deal with URIs in general. >>Given that we already have an issue for xml base I am >>wondering whether we need another issue. >> >>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >>mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >> >>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0005.html >> >>>In private discussion, Henrik and I tripped over the question of a >>>relative URI used as an actor. If a block has: >>> >>> Actor="#A" >>> >>>or >>> >>> Actor="A" >>> >>>and if a node decides to act in that role, is there necessarily some >>>other absolute URI in which role it needs to act? I had assumed >>"no", but I >>>think Henrik had assumed "yes", and he further believes that >>>no changes to >>>the SOAP spec are needed, as this is implicit in the web and URI >>>architecture and the definition of a relative URI. >>> >>>I would prefer to at least be a bit clearer in the spec, say a bit >>>more about what the base URI for a message might be, etc. >>>Presumably the base >>>URI must be stable through message processing, so if you no >>>how to make #A >>>absolute, then #B must follow from that and be handled consistently? >>> >>>All of this bears some relation to the dreaded Namespace >issue (is it >>>a string or a real URI) but at least in this case nobody is >>proposing to >>>actually retrieve a resource in most cases. >>> >>>Anyway, I recommend we open an issue. Thanks. >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 13:06:12 UTC