RE: [wsn] [Namespace URIs] Proposal to split the existing namespaces

["Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>]

Actually, "we cannot use this where a URI is expected" is too strong a
sentence. But it poses the risk of creating unnecessary hardship and in
any case it doesn't improve "resolvability" in the absence of rules to
handle content identifiers for XSD and WSDL documents. So I don't see
any value for us going there.

William

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vambenepe, William N 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:33 PM
> To: fred.carter@amberpoint.com; wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsn] [Namespace URIs] Proposal to split the 
> existing namespaces
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> Fragment identifiers are not part of the URI. They are appended to it.
> The "#" character is not allowed in a URI. As a result
> http://example.com/hello#world is not a URI. It is the 
> concatenation of
> a URI and the "world" content identifier. How to handle the content
> identifier is defined differently based on the type of the document at
> the URI. We are all familiar with how it is handled when the 
> document is
> HTML. I am not aware of any specification describing how to handle it
> for a XSD or WSDL document.
> 
> In any case, we cannot use this where a URI is expected.
> 
> See RFC2396 section 4.1 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> William
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fred Carter [mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:11 PM
> > To: Steve Graham
> > Cc: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [wsn] [Namespace URIs] Proposal to split the 
> > existing namespaces
> > 
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > I think the only concern I had was that we link things to 
> > WSN.  If I'm 
> > understanding your intent correctly, that's amongst the changes in 
> > version 2 of the proposed draft.  So that seems fine.
> > 
> > This one is purely a question.  I have no strong opinion one 
> > way or the 
> > other.  Just a thought... Since we're going for resolvability 
> > of URI's, 
> > might it make sense to have things like BaseAction URI's resolve to 
> > their sections in the schema?  We appear to be close, in that 
> > (say, for 
> > subscribe) we are using the schema location with the action 
> > name appended
> >      
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/2004/05/WS-BaseNotification/Subscribe
> > 
> > I don't know if it would be possible to do something like 
> change the 
> > "/Subscribe" to a "#Subscribe".  It's probably overkill, and, 
> > as I said, 
> > I don't know who xlink/xptr/anchors work in schemas (or even if...).
> > 
> > Anyway, just a thought in the spirit of 'resolvability'.
> > 
> > /fred
> > 
> > Thus quoth Steve Graham (~ 11-May-04 12:59 PM ~)...
> > 
> > > 
> > > *Folks:*
> > > *In [1] I proposed a mapping from the namespace URI 
> > convention used in 
> > > version 1.1 of WS-notification specs to one based on the 
> OASIS file 
> > > naming and related URI namespace conventions.*
> > > 
> > > *The submitted version of WS-Notification used a single URI 
> > namespace 
> > > per specification for both the XSD and WSDL.  Given that we 
> > are trying 
> > > to adopt a direct mapping from URI to URL for our XSD and 
> WSDL, we 
> > > should change this pattern to having separate URI 
> > namespaces for the XSD 
> > > and WSDL.*
> > > 
> > > *Does anyone object to adopting this change in namespace 
> > URIs for the 
> > > 0.1 draft of the OASIS work on WS-Notification?*
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > *[1**]*_http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsn/downl
> > oad.php/6710/Proposed%20WS-Notification%20URIs.2.doc_
> > > 
> > > sgg
> > > ++++++++
> > > Steve Graham
> > > (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> > > STSM, On Demand Architecture
> > > Member, IBM Academy of Technology
> > > <Soli Deo Gloria/>
> > > ++++++++
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.
> > 
> mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com
> tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301
>