- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:20:48 -0500 (EST)
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
I just noticed this from part 1; "The serialization rules defined by SOAP (see [1]SOAP Encoding) are identified by the URI "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding". SOAP messages using this particular serialization SHOULD indicate this using the SOAP encodingStyle attribute information item. In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding" indicate conformance with the SOAP encoding rules defined in [1](SOAP Encoding), though with potentially tighter rules added." Is this really required? My concern about it stems from something I believe about URIs quite strongly; that they should be opaque[1] (even if my views differ slightly from Tim's). Asserting that two resources (the default encoding, and some other compatible but tighter encoding) are related because they start the same way, seems not very opaque to me. Better, IMO, would be requiring an RDF Schema representation of each extended encoding resource that asserted that it was a rdfs:subClassOf of the default encoding (or some other similar assertion that better describes this relationship, if required). [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 17:20:19 UTC