[jsdl-wg] One Last Batch of Technical Queries

[Michel Drescher]

On 3 Jun 2005, at 15:32, Donal K. Fellows wrote:

> Michel Drescher wrote:
>> I think it should be "1". Although the "U" in URI stands for 
>> "Uniform" rather than "Universal", URIs are much more universal than 
>> they are commonly perceived. URIs are not limited to the well known 
>> things like HTTP or FTP. You can express much more things, especially 
>> if one does not associate the path structure with file system path 
>> structures (which is the most common mistake people make). To be 
>> honest, I can't think of any use case that cannot be expressed using 
>> URIs.
>> Do you have some examples?
>
> It's not that the content cannot be encoded as a URI, but whether 
> people
> will want to. But in specific, you can bet that people will want to put
> both WSRF EndPoint References and WS-Names in, and IIRC some of those
> are expressed as XML document fragments?
>
> I could also think of people (especially from the Data community)
> wanting to put much richer things inside the Source and Target, and I'd
> imagine that some of them would resent having to force the descriptions
> of what to talk to into a URI...

Ok convinced. So I also opt to have the URI element as optional, and to 
have a xsd:any extension point in both Source and Target elements 
(isn't this already in there?)

Cheers,
Michel