----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:21
PM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] issue 84
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
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 -----
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
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.