Fw: [oasis-member-discuss] Comments on AIR WD 015

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Just FYI here - seeing we are doing this stuff for real!

Cheers, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Niblett" <peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com>
To: <oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:45 PM
Subject: [oasis-member-discuss] Comments on AIR WD 015


> Hi. I have read through the AIR. I think it will be very helpful to have a
> consistent approach to naming, but I do have a number of comments on the
> document.
>
> 220. Definition of an Artifact. Is a URN or Namespace URI considered to be
> an artifact? They aren't mentioned in the definition
>
> 227-229     . What is the purpose of the Artifact Name definition? I could
> not see where it is used, and the document contains a large number of
> "name" concepts (Artifact Identifier, Artifact Name, Filename, Structured
> Name, Product, Descriptive Name) so it would be helpful to remove one.
>
> 271. Many Web services specifications include WSDL files. Could we have an
> artifact type for them?
>
> 328-329. Line 328 talks about ArtifactIdentifier, but 329 contains the
> words artifactName: [descriptive name], which looks wrong to me. I would
> have expected it to say artifactIdentifier: [as defined in section 5]
>
> 336. Does productVersion always include the leading letter v (i.e. v1.0),
> or never include it, or is it optional? The syntax given at 336 and 643
> doesn't seem to permit the v, yet the examples in 686 include a v.
>
> 336 (and 643). Why is the period and minor value optional? All examples I
> have seen include the minor value even if it is zero, e.g. 1.0. It would
> make things more consistent if they were mandatory.
>
> 374. Why has the use of underbar been prohibited in a product name? We use
> it today in WSN, e.g. ws_base_notification. The trouble with mixed case is
> that we would end up with three consecutive upper case letters, e.g.
> WSBaseNotification which doesn't look good, or we have to artificially
> lower the case of the B, i.e. WSbaseNotification, which again looks odd. I
> understand there might be a concern about mixing hyphen and underbar in an
> identifier, but I think that looks ok: ws_base_notification-1.3-spec-pr-01
>
> 393. This line says that Stage may be omitted for schemas, but MUST be
> included for all other types. Since the list of types is not exhaustive
> this seems a bit harsh (for example the exemption for schemas should apply
> also to WSDL). Could we replace this with a list of types for which the
> Stage MUST be included (Catalog, Conformance Criteria, Errata, Guidelines,
> Profile, Requirements, Prose Specification)?
>
> 395 "A DescriptiveName must be included if no other metadata in included
in
> the ArtifactName". This seems to contradict 384 which says that the format
> for ArtifactIdentifier is a structured name. If the intention is to allow
> an ArtifactIdentifier to be either a Descriptive Name OR a Structured Name
> (as implied by non-normative appendix B), then you should say this
> explicitly at the start of 5.3 and not introduce the idea in the middle of
> the definition of a structured name.
>
> 401. "A value of Form SHALL be used only for files, URLs, URNs.." Are
there
> any other kinds of artifact (if not, this sentence would seem to be
> redundant)? Also it isn't clear whether Form is required for these kinds
of
> artifact or not. I would strongly oppose having to put .html onto a
> Namespace URL. If it is a prose document that exists in multiple formats
> (.pdf and .doc for example) are these considered to be distinct
artifacts -
> which would imply that their identifiers contain Form - or are they
> different renderings of the same artifact - in which case they would have
> presumably have an identifier without a Form.
>
> 414. Why is revision required for a filename but not for an
> ArtifactIdentifier? I assumed that the reason for omitting it from the
> ArtifactIdentifier is that you don't want to have to include it on an
OASIS
> standard - but then why require it for the filename? Also why is language
> not allowed in a filename?  It would simplify things if 5.4.1 just said
> that for a Spec or Prose document the Filename MUST be identical to the
> ArtifactIdentifier (with a Form if not already included)
>
> 421. "The filename MUST be descriptive as to the document title". You
don't
> define the term 'Document Title'.  Can we just delete this sentence?
>
> 455/463. These sentences would seem to completely replace 5.4.1. Also if
> you permit ArtifactIdentifiers for files to contain Form then these
> sentences should say "including the literal period and Form" rather than
> "followed by the literal period and form".
>
> 519. Please make it clear that .html is not required on a Namespace URL
> (even though it is required to point at a RDDL document). Also to help
> people construct their schema location and import statements, we should
> have a convention that allows you easily to deduce the location from the
> URI. At the moment some specs use the URL of the schema as the URI for the
> namespace. Presumably we can no longer doing this if the Namespace URI has
> to be the URL for the RDDL document (or have I misunderstood this?) So how
> about saying that the pure URI (with no suffix) points at the RDDL, and
the
> URI with .xsd or .wsdl suffix points at the actual schema/wsdl document.
>
> 551. In order to avoid long and unwieldy URIs, the WSN and WSRF TCs use
the
> Technical Committee tree to contain their Namespace URIs and the
> corresponding XML Schema and WSDL artifacts. We would wish to continue
> doing this - and in any case some of these artefacts span multiple
> products. It's not clear from the document whether this would be permitted
> or not (the actual specs that own the artefacts live in the [product]
> tree).
>
> 674. Appendix C is hard to read on the screen as it is rotated through 90
> degrees. Does it have to be like this?
>
> 686. The examples talk about Part, but this isn't mentioned elsewhere in
> the document.
>
> Questions from your questionnaire on which I have an opinion...
>
> 3. Should hyphen be permitted in a Descriptive Name?  Yes
> 4. Should we reverse the order of stage and artifact type? No. Type and
> Revision naturally fit together (wd-03)
> 5. Should schemas use structured names? No. I would like to keep the
schema
> name in step with the namespace URI, with the filename as the last node in
> the URI. I also want to keep the URIs simple.
> 6. Are the requirements for ArtifactIdentifier confusing with respect to
> file names? Yes. See my comments above. I think they should be identical
> for prose documents (subject to the discussion about Form)
> 10. Examples. Some more would be useful
> 11. Additional artifact types? Yes (WSDL)
> 12. Is the grammar useful? Yes.
>
>
> Peter Niblett
> WS-Notification co-chair
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>