[Bug 84] State whether URI's are for dereferencing or identification

[bugzilla-daemon@arjuna.com]

http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84





------- Additional Comments From mark.little@arjuna.com  2004-04-15 10:03 -------
The context question was more the concern of what is now issue 92 (PRF-34), 
though it's only thrown in at the end of the explanation of that.  CAF-84 was 
more concerned with the definition of things, so 
 
rathole-identifier : a URI that identifies where the rats are
 
probably just means it is an unambiguous name for the rathole, but it's 
possible that some other bit of the specification requires implementations to 
dereference it (presumably to get the rats out). The definition of the 
identifier should say whether the required use is just identification. 
 
(the distinction isn't necessarily rigid - as with xml namespace ids, where 
the requirement is only identification, but if you choose to make it an http 
url AND you choose to put a copy of the schema (or whatever) on the page 
pointed to, you may be thought of as helpful)
 
 
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
Sent: 14 April 2004 15:02
To: Furniss, Peter; ws-caf
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] issue 84


I thought you were hinting at the problem that we currently overload the 
context identifier field so that you can't tell from:
 
<wsctx>
    <context-identifier>foo</context-identifier>
</wsctx>
 
whether foo is a rereferencable URI or just a basic context without any 
augmentation. Seems to me that is an issue and we either add an attribute to 
context-identifier or have a different element.
 
Mark.
 
----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
 
www.arjuna.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Furniss, Peter 
To: Mark Little ; ws-caf 
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] issue 84


When I raised the issue I was thinking primarily that it must be stated in the 
definition of a field, rather than that it need be in the schema as well. I've 
no objection as such to having it in the syntax, but I'm not sure it's needed.
 
 
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
Sent: 14 April 2004 14:25
To: ws-caf
Subject: [ws-caf] issue 84


http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84
 
This is about making it explicit whether a URI is for referencing or not. I 
agree it needs to be clarified and favour an optional attribute like:
 
<wsctx>
    <context-uri reference=true/>
</wsctx>
 
I think the majority of uses for URI in the raw context are for unique 
identification purposes, so it's probable that this is only actually required 
on the context-id field. The default IMO would be false.
 
Again, I want to set up a Kavi ballot for this in a day or so, to try to clear 
as many of the "minor" issues as possible before the f2f.
 
Mark. 



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.