On 14.06.2006, at 14:01, Dave Morris wrote:
> Paul Harrison wrote:
>
>> 2. DataObjectReference type contains the idea of a name (expressed
>> as a string) and a container that the Object lives in - I am not
>> sure that this distinction is still needed now that we have some
>> consensus on the vos: URL scheme, as it has built in semantics
>> for expressing a container.
>
> The original definition for a node did have both the name and the URI.
> The reason was that the URI would be encoded (space = %20 etc.),
> and the unencoded name was provided to make things easier to
> display things in a UI.
> Having talked with UI developers at Canada, it was decided that
> providing the name as a plain string was duplicating data and
> wasn't required anyway.
> So, server responses do not need to include the name, just the URI.
it is already true in the WSDL that server responses only have the
URI - it is only input parameters that use this DataObjectReference
>
> However, when creating a new node, it was agreed that the client
> would supply the name as a plain text string, and the server would
> convert this into the URI encoded identifier.
> This means that the server side code does the URI encoding, making
> it easier to verify that we get it right.
> The operations that create a new node (CreateNode, PushDataTo and
> PullDataTo) take the name of the new node, not the identifier.
> This gives us a way of distinguishing between import into an
> existing node (node URI) and import into a new node (node name).
>
also I think that there was also the idea that the server would
generate a name automatically so the URI could point to a container...
> The distinction still isn't as clear as I would like, but that is
> what is in the current document.
> If we want to change this, then we will need to modify the document.
I think that the semantics of these operations are not still clear as currently implemented in the WSDL, and do need some work Received on 2006-06-14Z16:20:01