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

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

Title: Message

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:26 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay
Cc: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsn] [Namespace URIs] Proposal to split the existing namespa ces

Hi Sanjay:
I don't believe the consequences of the decision are very great here.  It is just a slight shift in URI usage.  In the original WSDL and XSD, for simplicity we chose to have one namespace per spec.  One less namespace URI to generate a xmlns:xxx for.  Nothing more. As it turns out, some tools actually had trouble dealing with the fact that a xsd:schema within a wsdl:types element had the same @targetNamespace as an xsd:schema in an xsd file.

With regards to "closely related" namespaces. No tool (that I am aware) really takes advantage of that affinity.  

<Sanjay> But we don't want to eliminate this possibility either, right?</Sanjay>

 Besides with the date-encoded namespace URIs suggested in my proposal, the affinity should still be suggested based on the spec name and date portions of the URI.  

<Sanjay> That's exactly what I fear. Instead of using a simple string match, we will now have to introduce semantics for namespace equivalence. That would be the cost of splitting the namespace, while the benefits are not entirely clear (pl see my next comment)</Sanjay> 

With regards to namespace resolvability, many namespace URIs are in fact resolvable.  XML Schema never forced the resolvability property for reasons that are beyond my understanding.  I have talked to some XSD wizards and came away convinced that the decision XSD designers made was to satisfy a corner case, and was not terribly convincing.  

<Sanjay> As long as the resolvability property is not supported by the base XML specifications, it will be hard to build interoperable systems that take advantage of this property.  Also, what really are the benefits of resolvability that are convincing us to split the Notification namespace?</Sanjay>

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> 05/11/2004 05:02 PM

To:        Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, wsn@lists.oasis-open.org         cc:                 Subject:        RE: [wsn] [Namespace URIs] Proposal to split the existing namespa        ces

 
I am not sure I understand fully the consequences of the decision here.
 
I guess there were valid reasons for using the same namespace for the related set of WSDL and XSD instances. The simplest and perhaps most significant advantage of using the same namespace IMHO was that - tools could easily recognize and build on the fact that the WSDL, XSD (and perhaps some other artifacts in  future) instances tagged with the same namespace are closely related. For example, if one of the artifacts changes, I could possibly use the knowledge of the relationship to analyze the impact of the change.
 
With separate namespaces for the WSDL and XSD, I suppose the relationships between them have to be captured explicitly and the mechanisms for doing so may not be equivalent to using the same namespace (I am not sure).
 
I never felt comfortable about the fact that  namespace URLs are not required to be resolvable. But having some how accepted this fact, now I am not sure why we want to adopt resolvability (specifically when there are no guarantees) and is the cost of the same (requiring separate namespaces for each related artifact) worth it?  I think I may have missed some big debate somewhere about the benefits of making namespaces resolvable, while the namespace specification may continue to not require the same!
 
Can somebody closely familiar with this issue shed some light here please!
 
Thanks,
Sanjay
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:59 PM
To: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsn] [Namespace URIs] Proposal to split the existing namespaces


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/download.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/>
++++++++