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