- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:10:32 -0500
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- CC: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, henrikn <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1 Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > The religion here comes from the fact that URI's and resouces are arguably > the two most fundamental abstactions on the web, with quite carefully > crafted standards regarding their interpretation. So, if you have a > document with a base URI, and relative URI references, Web architecture > suggests that the relative forms should really be made absolute before use. > This also ensures that if a retrievable resource is used to, e.g., describe > a role, that the resouce can be consistently retrieved using both absolute > and relative forms. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > "Williams, > Stuart" To: "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@sun.com> > <skw@hplb.hpl.hp. cc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > com> <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Doug > Sent by: Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > xml-dist-app-requ Subject: RE: Possible new issue on interpretation of relative URI > est@w3.org actors > > > 12/05/01 12:31 PM > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > I had a slightly more subtle read of Noah's issue, in that I thought that > he > was asking where in fact two roles were being denoted by the use of a > relative URI in an actor. ie does actor="#A" imply distinct roles "#A" and > "http:/foo.org/#A" > > From Noah's message: > >>>I am OK with drawing the conclusion that any node that acts in role #A >>>must (or should, if you prefer) act in some corresponding absolute URI >>>role as well. >>> > > The trailing "as well" is suggestive of an 'additional' role as opposed to > "#A" and http://foo/#A" being different ways to denote the same single > role. > > Personally I'm a same single role kind of a person myself :-) > > My £0.02, > > Stuart > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com] >>Sent: 04 December 2001 21:47 >>To: Doug Davis >>Cc: Noah Mendelsohn; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; xml-dist-app@w3.org >>Subject: Re: Possible new issue on interpretation of relative >>URI actors >> >> >>I didn't interpret it that way. What I took away from >>this is that the following are equivalent w/r/t the >>actor role identified. >> >><S:Envelope xmlns:S="..." xml:base="http://foo/"> >> <S:Header> >> <X:A S:actor="#bar" xmlns:X="..."> >> </S:Header> >> <S:Body/> >></S:Envelope> >> >><S:Envelope xmlns:S="..."> >> <S:Header> >> <X:A S:actor="http://foo/#bar" xmlns:X="..."> >> </S:Header> >> <S:Body/> >></S:Envelope> >> >> >>My $0.02, >> >>Chris >> >>Doug Davis wrote: >> >> >>>Noah, are you suggesting that "http://foo/" and "http://foo/#A" >>>should be equal w.r.t. determining roles? I don't believe >>>that are (or should be) equal. >>>-Dug >>> >>> >>>Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus@Lotus@w3.org on 12/04/2001 03:18:48 PM >>> >>>Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org >>> >>> >>>To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com> >>>cc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus@Lotus, xml-dist-app@w3.org >>>Subject: RE: Possible new issue on interpretation of >>> >>relative URI actors >> >>> >>> >>>No problem. Although we use slightly different words, I think we are >>> > in > >>>general agreement. URI's reference resources, by definition. I am OK >>>with drawing the conclusion that any node that acts in role #A must (or >>>should, if you prefer) act in some corresponding absolute URI role as >>>well. A consequence of this decision is, for a given absolute AbsU, a >>>node acting in #A and #B must act as either both AbsU#A and AbsU#B or >>>neither. I think we should call that out with at least a note. >>> >>> >>> >>-------------------------------------------------------------- >>---------- >> >>>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> >>>12/04/2001 01:05 PM >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>>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 Wednesday, 5 December 2001 14:14:44 UTC